Judgment Satish Kumar Mitral, J. 1. The husband (Pardeep) has filed this appeal against the order dated 18.12.2009 passed by the District Judge (Family Court), Hisar on an application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By the said order, the Family Court has awarded Rs. 1100/- per month as maintenance to the respondent wife. 2. In this case, there is a delay of 40 days in filing the appeal. In the application (Crl. Misc. No. 11801 of 2010) for condonation of delay, on 5.3.2010 notice of motion was issued by this Court. As per office report, notice upon the respondent has been duly served. However, no one is present on behalf of the respondent wife. 3. Today, counsel for the appellant, while referring to the decision dated 10.3.2010 passed by this Court in Crl. Appeal No. 270-DB of 2010, submitted that this appeal may be treated as a revision as in that decision it was held that against an order passed in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a remedy of revision is available under sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, as the said Section confers power on this Court on its own motion or otherwise to call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which the Family Court situate within its jurisdiction passed an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the purpose of satisfying itself to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order, not being an interlocutory order. 4. Since notice of motion in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was issued by this Court on 5.3.2010, in which nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent wife, instead of treating the appeal as Criminal Revision, we have heard the arguments of the counsel for the appellant in the main appeal, on merits. 5. After hearing the counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned order, we do not find any illegality, perversity or unreasonableness in the impugned order. In the present case, the marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 14.1.2006. 5. After hearing the counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned order, we do not find any illegality, perversity or unreasonableness in the impugned order. In the present case, the marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 14.1.2006. As per the respondent wife, soon after the marriage the appellant started harassing her on account of demand of dowry and after a few months of the marriage, she was thrown out of the matrimonial home, and since then, she has been living separately at the mercy of her parents. 6. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant that she herself had left the matrimonial home without any reason, but it is admitted fact that since the year 2006 the respondent wife has been living separately and the appellant husband has not paid a penny to her for her maintenance during this period. It has also come in evidence that the respondent wife is illiterate. According to her, she is not earning any amount, whereas as per the husband, she is doing labour work and earning Rs. 3000/- per month. According to the respondent wife, the husband is owning some agricultural land and he is also running a grocery shop, besides keeping buffaloes and selling milk. All these facts have been denied by the husband. Keeping in view these facts, the Family Court found that the husband being an able bodied person is capable to maintain his wife and thus, awarded Rs. 1100/- per month as maintenance to the respondent wife. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Hence, in our opinion, the impugned order does not require any interference. Dismissed.