JUDGMENT HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) r/w Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.03.2008 passed by Family Judge, Family Court, Hardwar in Case no. 140/2006, Smt. Anuja Vs. Mukesh Kumar, by which the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent no. 2 – wife. The arrears from 6.10.2006 to 15.12.2007 (when she was appointed as a Police Constable) were directed to be paid by the revisionist to respondent no. 2 @ Rs. 5,000/- per month within 30 days. From 15.12.2007, till the date of order i.e. 15.3.2008, the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month towards arrears. 2. I have heard Sri Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No. 1 and Sri Bhuvnesh Joshi, Adv. i/b Sri Vivek Shukla.. Adv. for Respondent no. 3 and perused the entire material available on record. 3. In brief, the facts of case, are that Respondent No. 2 – Smt. Anuja moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 10.06.2006 as per Hindu RITES and he father spent about Rs. 10.00 lacs in marriage. However, the revisionist and his family members were the greedy persons and they started harassing her for getting a Santro Car, a plot in Dehradun and a golden big necklace in dowry. When she did not meet out their demands of dowry, then she was also subjected to physical and mental harassment. On 17.6.2006, revisionist came along with his wife and again raised his demand of dowry and then left here there and since then he did not pay any heed towards her. On 2.7.2006 revisionist came at her parental house, took her at Nainital and on 5.7.2006, he again left her at her parental house and since then no contact was made by revisionist and his family members towards her. It was also stated that the revisionist is an educated man and is posted as Pharmacist in Muzaffarnagar from where he gets Rs. 12,000-15,000/- per month. Besides this, he also have got some agricultural land and also earns some money from letting his house on rent, from where he earns Rs. It was also stated that the revisionist is an educated man and is posted as Pharmacist in Muzaffarnagar from where he gets Rs. 12,000-15,000/- per month. Besides this, he also have got some agricultural land and also earns some money from letting his house on rent, from where he earns Rs. 20,000/- per month. In total, the revisionist was shown to be earning Rs. 35,000/- per month. On the other hand, it was stated by respondent no. 2 that she did not know any work and she is living as a burden to her father. With all these averments, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month was sought as maintenance by respondent no. 2 against the revisionist. The revisionist also appeared before the court below filed his written statement and denied most of averments of the application moved by respondent no. 2. He has stated that she was psychologically ill before marriage and this fact was concealed by her parents deliberately. He also stated that he did not receive anything in the marriage nor he ever demanded anything from the respondent no. 2 and her parents. Later on 11.3.2008, the revisionist filed his amended written statement in which he has stated that the respondent no. 2 has been appointed as a Constable in Uttarakhand Police Department from where she earns Rs. 6,000/- per month, as such she is not entitled to get any amount of maintenance. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, the learned Family Judge, Family Court, Hardwar vide his judgment and order dated 15.03.2008 directed the revisionist as above. Against the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 4. Sri Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the revisionist submitted that respondent no. 2 – Smt. Anuja has been appointed as a Constable in Uttarakhand Police Dept. from where she earns more than Rs. 7,000/- per month, as such she is not entitled to get any amount of maintenance against the revisionist. Sri Bhuvnesh Joshi, Adv. i/b Sri Vivek Shukla, Adv. for respondent no. 2 also stated at bar that the respondent no. 2 is working as a Constable in the Uttarakhand Police and she is getting Rs. 6,500/- per month as salary. 5. 7,000/- per month, as such she is not entitled to get any amount of maintenance against the revisionist. Sri Bhuvnesh Joshi, Adv. i/b Sri Vivek Shukla, Adv. for respondent no. 2 also stated at bar that the respondent no. 2 is working as a Constable in the Uttarakhand Police and she is getting Rs. 6,500/- per month as salary. 5. The main question involved in the present case is that whether the Respondent No. 2, who is said to be working as a Constable in Uttarakhand Police Deptt., is entitled to get any maintenance from her husband or not. The basic requirement of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide maintenance to a wife, children or parents, who are actually unable to maintain themselves. As per Section 125 Cr.P.C., a husband may be directed to provide maintenance to his wife subject to the condition that she is unable to maintain herself and her husband even having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to maintain his wife. In the present case, it is admitted between the parties that respondent no. 2 – Smt. Anuja is working as a Constable in Uttarakhand Police Department. Respondent No. 2 is also getting Rs. 6,500/- per month as salary and this fact has also been admitted by counsel for respondent no. 2. As such, it is apparent that in the present scenario, she can easily maintain herself and therefore she does need any maintenance amount. 6. For the reasons as recorded above, the judgment and order passed by Family Judge, Family Court, Hardwar dated 15.3.2008 cannot be said to be correct and justified and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and accordingly the same is liable to be set aside. 7. Sri Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the revisionist further submitted that in compliance of the interim order dated 7.4.2008 passed by this Court, the revisionist has paid the entire amount and the order passed by this Court stands complied with. 8. In view of the foregoing reasons, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 15.3.2008 passed by Family Judge, Family Court, Hardwar in Case No. 140/2006, Smt. Anuja Vs. Mukesh Kumar, is hereby set aside. However, it is provided that any amount paid by the revisionist to the respondent no. 2 in lieu of maintenance, shall not be recovered. Interim order dated 7.4.2008 passed by this Court accordingly stands vacated.