1. Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Sujan Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra, in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Rakatganj, Agra, whereby an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month has been awarded to the revisionist towards maintenance from opposite party no. 2, her husband, with effect from 14.03.2022. The revisionist seeks enhancement of the amount so awarded.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 31.08.2014 at Ahmedabad according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. It is not in dispute that the opposite party no. 2 is engaged in business at Ahmedabad under the name and style of M/s G.E.C. International Study Centre. Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that soon after the marriage, the opposite party no. 2 expelled her from the matrimonial home on 25.09.2014 while raising unlawful demands of dowry, following which she lodged a complaint at the Women Police Station, Agra. It is further contended that the revisionist has been abandoned by the opposite party no. 2 without any reasonable cause and that he has failed to provide any maintenance. It is submitted that although the revisionist is educated, she is presently unemployed, dependent upon her father, and incapable of maintaining herself. Learned counsel further submits that the opposite party no. 2 is an overseas educational consultant running a coaching institute, earning approximately Rs. 5,00,00,000/- annually, and is leading a luxurious lifestyle. Accordingly, the revisionist filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2015 seeking maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the said concern is a partnership firm in which his sister holds a 75% share, while he holds only a 25% share. It is contended that the revisionist behaved in a cruel and improper manner towards him and his family, and that she resided with him only for about twenty days before leaving and residing with her parents since 2014 without sufficient cause, thereby deserting him. The opposite party no. 2 denies all allegations. It is further contended that the revisionist is highly educated, holding an MBA degree, and was gainfully employed prior to marriage with Kotak Mahindra Company and E-Clerx, a multinational company at Pune. It is submitted that she also worked with M/s Quess Corporation Ltd., earning approximately Rs. 3,36,000/- annually, and that she has the capacity to earn more than Rs. 50,000/- per month. However, it is contended that the opposite party no. 2 earns only Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month and is burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his aged mother. It is also stated that, on account of the conduct of the revisionist, he is suffering from depression and incurring substantial legal expenses. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is sought. The learned Family Court, after recording evidence and perusing the material on record, awarded maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of the revisionist. Aggrieved thereby, the present criminal revision has been filed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The fact that the revisionist is the legally wedded wife of the opposite party no. 2 is not in dispute. In her evidence before the learned Family Court, the revisionist stated that her father had retired from service as a guard. It is evident that the parties cohabited for less than one month. It is also clear from the record that the opposite party no. 2 did not make any effort to express willingness to resume cohabitation with the revisionist at any stage of the proceedings. The absence of any such offer, even during cro