This criminal revision under section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been directed against the order dated 21.8.98 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi in MR Case No. 10 of 1998 under section 125 CrPC. The learned Magistrate vide the impugned order directed the revision petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs. 500 to his wife with effect from 1.2.98. Being aggrieved, the husband Shri Pradip Das has preferred this revision. 2. It would appear from the materials on record that the marriage between the parties which was solemnised on 29.1.97 is not disputed. Altogether a sum of Rs. 1,18,000 was allegedly given to the petitioner in cash and kind at the time of marriage. But immediate after the marriage, the respondent was ill-treated by her in-laws. There was demand for payment of money. The torture perpetuated upon her increased gradually and eventually, being unable to tolerate the same, she had to take shelter in her brother's house with effect from 18.7.97. the petitioner has not cared to pay anything towards her maintenance although his monthly income is Rs.9,000. As the respondent has no income of her own, she had to move the petition under section 125 CrPC. 3. The petitioner as second party in the aforesaid proceedings under section 125 CrPC refuted the charges brought against him. It has been pleaded that the first party was insisting upon him to engage a maid servant which was beyond his capacity and she was also reluctant to do any household work. It is also submitted that the petitioner had filed a suit in the Court of learned District Judge, Tinsukia for restitution of conjugal right and he is also willing to take her back to his house. 4. It would appear from the evidence on record that the respondent-wife had to leave her matrimonial home within 6 (six) months of marriage because of alleged torture mounted upon her by the in-laws. In her evidence, she had stated that she was under constant pressure for payment of dowry and was subjected to mental torture on flimsy grounds. Once she had to take Rs.8,000 from her brother PW 2 for payment to her husband. PW 2 also supported her in all material points including payment of Rs.8,000 by a Bank Draft. In her evidence, she had stated that she was under constant pressure for payment of dowry and was subjected to mental torture on flimsy grounds. Once she had to take Rs.8,000 from her brother PW 2 for payment to her husband. PW 2 also supported her in all material points including payment of Rs.8,000 by a Bank Draft. The second party, who is admittedly drawing Rs.6,000 as salary from the Bank deposed that the respondent left the house out of her own volition and, as such, she is not entitled to maintenance. The petitioner husband, however, did not dispute payment of Rs.8,000 as alleged. 5. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concluded that the respondent-wife was subjected to mental torture in the house of her in-laws. The conclusion has been drawn from various facets that surface from the evidence on record. No significant infirmity could be highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner so as to enable this Court to take a different view. The evidence on record shows that the petitioner-husband is getting Rs. 6,000 per month as salary from the Bank after all deductions. Therefore, the quantum of maintenance allowance awarded by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be beyond the financial capacity of the' petitioner-husband. His plea that he has to maintain a number of persons is of no importance as he is obliged to maintain his wife first. Even an able bodied husband having no income cannot be divested of the responsibility to maintain his wife. The plea that suit for restitution of conjugal right is pending and the petitioner-husband is willing to take his wife back cannot be a ground for refusal to maintenance on the facet of proved ill-treatment. The situation may suffer a change if the suit for restitution of conjugal right is decreed, but till then, the husband is legally bound to maintain his wife. There is no escape from this. 6.1 do not find that the impugned order has in any manner occasioned failure of justice in the instant case. The revision petition is, therefore, devoid of merit and deserves dismissal. 7. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. The interim order of stay granted on 14.9.98 stands vacated.