JUDGMENT Hon'ble D.C. Kandpal, J.- This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist Vinod Kumar for quashing the order dated 23.3.2004 passed by the Principle Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in case no. 805 of 2002 Smt. Perves Vs. Vinod Kumar u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are this opposite party no. 2 Smt. Perves filed petition u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. before the court of Principle Judge, Family Court, Dehradun for maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month. The opposite party Smt. Perves has stated in her petition that her husband owns a shop of general merchandise and has an income of Rs. 6,000/- per month from that shop. 3. The revisionist has filed the objection before the court below and has denied that he owns any shop of general merchandise. The revisionist has' stated that he in fact neither have any shop nor any source of income but he is absolutely dependent upon his parents, hence is not in a position to pay the amount of maintenance to his wife. It has also been pleaded by the revisionist in his objection before the court below that his wife is living with her parents without any cause. 4. The learned Principle Judge Family Court vide order dated 23.03.2004 directed that the revisionist should pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month to his wife. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, Vinod Kumar preferred revision before this court which has been placed before me for final disposal. 6. I have heard Sri K.S. Verma, learned counsel for the Revisionist and Shri Vinod Sharma for Smt. Perves opposite party no. 2 and I perused the record. 7. The record shows that the opposite party no. 2 in fact has mentioned in her petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. that her husband has an income of Rs. 6,000/p.m. from the shop of general merchandise and the revisionist Vinod Kumar has specifically denied this assertion. Under these circumstances, it can not be observed with certainty as to whether the revisionist owns the shop of general merchandise and infact has an income of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. from that shop. 8. However, this fact cannot be denied that the opposite party no. 2 is the wife of the revisionist and she is entitled to claim the maintenance allowance from her husband. 6,000/- p.m. from that shop. 8. However, this fact cannot be denied that the opposite party no. 2 is the wife of the revisionist and she is entitled to claim the maintenance allowance from her husband. As I have already observed that there is no specific evidence before the court as to how much income per month the revisionist has. But in any case, the revisionist will have to pay some amount as to interim maintenance to his wife for her livelihood. Therefore, under these circumstances, it would be just and proper to direct the revisionist to pay an amount of Rs. 800/- p.m. instead of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent no. 2. 9. The revisionist is thus partly allowed. 10. The impugned order passed by the court below is modified to the extent that the revisionist shall pay an amount of Rs. 800/- p.m. instead or Rs. 1,000/- p.m. to his wife respondent no. 2 Smt. Perves. 11. In case if the revisionist fails to pay the aforesaid amount to the respondent no. 2 regularly, then the opposite party no. 2 shall be at liberty to proceed further against the revisionist in order to make the recovery of the amount. 12. With the aforesaid observation, the revision is thus partly allowed.