N. B. ASTHANA, J. This revision by the husband has been directed against the judgment and order dated 21-4-1990 passed by Km. Sadhna Rani the then IVth Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Mathura in Criminal Case No. 46/xi/90 under Section 125, Cr. P. C, directing the revisionist to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month to the opposite party w. e. f. 19-2-1988, the date of filing the application. 2. It has not been disputed that the opposite party is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and that they were married in the year 1978. 3. The application was moved upon the allegations that after some time of the marriage the revisionist started ill treating the opposite party. He used to take intoxicants, gamble and have relations with other women. The opposite party objected to these habits of the revisionist whereupon she was harassed, cruelly treated, beaten and was not given food to eat. He also used to taunt that she did not bring enough dowry in the marriage. He pressurised her to bring Rs. 10. 000/- from her father as he wanted- to make a house. Her father is a class III employee in the railways and for that reason he was unable to satisfy the demand of the revisionist, with the result that his tieatment towards her became more cruel. She was threatened. Her signatures were taken on two blank papers and then on 6-12-1987 Natthi Lal elder brother of the revisionist, his wife, Chhunni Lal and his wife brought her to the house of her father and left her there. The revisionist did not come to take her. On 14-12-1987 she sent a notice through a counsel to the revisionist but even then he did not come to take her. 4. She claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400 per month stating that the revisionist is earning Rs. 1,500 per month -. 5. The revisionist contested this application and denied the allegations regarding cruel treatment and harassment of the opposite party. He also denied having made any dowry demand from the opposite party. According to him the opposite party is in employment at Mathura and is also doing teaching work. She does not want to leave that employment and live with the revisionist. Since the opposite party has means to maintain herself she is not entitled for maintenance. He also denied having made any dowry demand from the opposite party. According to him the opposite party is in employment at Mathura and is also doing teaching work. She does not want to leave that employment and live with the revisionist. Since the opposite party has means to maintain herself she is not entitled for maintenance. He also stated that he is a casual labourer and is not able to earn more than Rs. 700 per month. He also offered to keep the opposite party with himself alleging that she should come and reside with him and perform her material obligations. 6. The Court below upon a consideration of the material placed before it came to the conclusion that having sufficient means the revisionist has neglected and refused to maintain the opposite party and granted the applica tion as stated above. Hence this revision. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 8. The first point urged is that the parties are living separately by mu tual consent and, therefore, in view of sub-section (4) of Section 125, Cr. P. C. the opposite party is not entitled for any maintenance allowance. No such plea appears to have been taken in the written statement, a certified copy of which has been placed before the Court for perusal. Evidence was however led to support the contention that the parties are living separate by mutual consent. An affidavit dated 3-12-1987 sworn by the parties before Sri Har Narain Sharma, Advocate a Notary of Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh) has been filed. Sri Har Narain Sharma has proved this affidavit. I have perused this affidavit carefully. It does not appear from a perusal of this affidavit that the parties are living separate by mutual consent. An affidavit dated 3-12-1987 sworn by the parties before Sri Har Narain Sharma, Advocate a Notary of Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh) has been filed. Sri Har Narain Sharma has proved this affidavit. I have perused this affidavit carefully. It does not appear from a perusal of this affidavit that the parties are living separate by mutual consent. It is stated in the affidavit that they were married about 10 years back, that no issue was born out of this wed-lock, that after living for such a long time together they have come to the conclu sion that it is not possible to further live together as they very much differ temperamentally, that they are major and in a position to know their good or bad and that on 3-12-1987 they have decided that they would remain together till 2-1-1988 and in case they come to the conclusion that it is not possible to live together further then they would take proceedings for seeking divorce im mediately. I did not find anything in this affidavit to indicate that they had mutually decided to live separately. On the basis of this affidavit it cannot be argued that the parties were residing separately by mutual consent. It would not be out of place to point out here that in the written statement nothing has been stated to indicate that after 2-1-1988 the parties were living separate in view of the aforesaid affidavit sworn by them. On the other hand it has been stated that the revisionist has always been willing and is still willing to keep comfortably the opposite party. On the other hand is para 14 of the written statement it is stated that the revisionist did not obtain signatures of the opposite party upon any paper in order to get himself relieved from the opposite party. From a perusal of the written statement it is clear that the revisionist did not rely upon this affidavit nor he took any plea that the parties were residing seprately by mutual consent. It appears that this affidavit was not acted upon by the parties and for that very reason it was not relied upon by any of the parties in their pleadings. It appears that this affidavit was not acted upon by the parties and for that very reason it was not relied upon by any of the parties in their pleadings. It further appears that by way of an after thought this affidavit was filed in order to argue that the parties are resid ing separately by mutual consent in order to avoid the payment Oi maintenance allowance to the opposite party. 9. In his cross-examination the revisionist denied that he had tempera mental difference with his wife and that the aforesaid fact was stated in the affidavit. He admitted that before swearing the affidavit he was satisfied that it is not possible for them to live together. He could not give any reasonable explanation as to why the suit for divorcejwas not filed even though he stated in cross-examination that before the date 2-1-1988 could expire the opposite party refused tolive with him and went to his fathers place. 10. From the material placed or vjcord it has not at all been established that the parties are residing separately by mutual consent. 11. It has now to be seen as to whether the revisionist had been cruel towards the opoosite party. I did not find anything in the written statement to indicate as to why the opposite party decided to live separately and claim maintenance. In the normal course the opposite party would not have left her husband. In the absence of any such reason in the written statement. I am of the opinion that the trial Court was fully justified in coming to the conclu sion that the revisionist was treating the opposite party cruelty as a result of which she was residing separately. This finding is reinforced from the fact that in the affidavit it is clearly stated that both the parties are tempera mentally different. 12. It is also the case of the revisionist that the opposite party is employed and is also doing stitching work at home and maintaining herself and therefore, is not entitled to claim maintenance allowance. Nothing has been stated in the written statement to indicate as to where she is employed. In his statement he has stated that the opposite party is teaching in a school. No material has been placed on record in support of this statement. Nothing has been stated in the written statement to indicate as to where she is employed. In his statement he has stated that the opposite party is teaching in a school. No material has been placed on record in support of this statement. A certi ficate from the alleged employer of the opposite party could have been filed to indicate that she was employed there and was getting so much of pay. In the absence of any such evidence it cannot be said that she was working as a teacher in some school. 13. It is also the contention of the revisionist that the opposite party is doing stitching work at home. I did not find anything either in the written statement or in the statement of the revisionist to indicate as to how much she was able to earn by stitching. Moreover the revisionist in his statement admitted that he has not paid anything to the opposite party by way of main tenance allowance or otherwise after she left him. If in these circumstances she started doing teaching work to keep her body and soul together, it cannot be said that she is in a position to maintain herself. 14. It is also the contention of the revisionist that the maintenance allowance granted by the trial Court is exessive. According to the revisionist himself he is getting Rs. 700 per month by way of employment in J. C. Cotton Mills, Gwalior. It does not appear that he has any other liability except to maintain the opposite party. Even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that he is earning not more than Rs. 700 per month even then it cannot be said that the maintenance allowance granted is excessive. In these days when the prices of even essential commodities are sky rocketing. It would have been difficult for the opposite party to maintain herself in less than Rs. 300 per month. It is the duty of the husband to maintain her wife. He cannot get out of this responsibility by simply saying that he is not earning enough to maintain her. 15. I have considered carefully the submissions made by the revisionist in the written statement. In my view no case for interference in the order passed by the Court below has been made out. 16. In the result the revision is dismissed. 15. I have considered carefully the submissions made by the revisionist in the written statement. In my view no case for interference in the order passed by the Court below has been made out. 16. In the result the revision is dismissed. All the stay orders granted earlier are vacated. Revision dismissed. .