Rajesh Chandra, J. - Revisionist Brij Behari has flied this revision against the judgment and order dated 9.5.2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh allowing the application of the opposite party Smt. Kusum Lata (hereinafter referred to as applicant) moved under section 125 Cr.P.C for providing maintenance to her and her two children against the revisionist Brij Behari (hereinafter referred to as opposite party). In brief the facts of the case are that the applicant Smt. Kusum Lata for herself and for her minor daughters applicants No. 2 and 3 filed a petition against the opposite party Brij Behari under section 125 Cr. P.C. for maintenance. It was alleged in the application that the applicant Smt. Kusum Lata was mar­ried to opposite party Brij Behari 8 to 9 years ago and during this wedlock two daughters, namely, Beenu and Nishoo were born. However, after the birth of these daughters, the opposite party started treating the applicant Smt. Kusum Lata with cruelty. She was abused and was beaten off and on about 8 to 9 months be­fore filing of the application under section 125 Cr. P.C. the opposite party turned the applicant out of the marital home and threatened that he will have a second mar­riage. The applicant Smt. Kusum Lata came to her parental house and narrated the en­tire story. Her father and brother along with other village people went to the house of the opposite party and attempted to pur­sued the opposite party not to extend cru­elty to the applicant but all went in vain. Opposite party categorically repeated that he will not keep the applicant with him as he is having relations with the daughter of Atbaru, resident of Bhavtar. The applicant further mentioned that since then she is living at the house of her parents and is unable to maintain herself and her chil­dren. According to the applicant, the op­posite party Brij Behari owns agricultural land and is practising as a Doctor. He is earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. She requested that Rs. 2000/- p.m. may be paid as maintenance for herself and her chil­dren. 2. Opposite party filed his written statement alleging therein that he is un­employed and is not doing any work. He never beat the applicant nor turned her out of the marital home nor refused to keep her with him. 12,000/- per month. She requested that Rs. 2000/- p.m. may be paid as maintenance for herself and her chil­dren. 2. Opposite party filed his written statement alleging therein that he is un­employed and is not doing any work. He never beat the applicant nor turned her out of the marital home nor refused to keep her with him. He is ready to keep the applicant and the two daughters with him. His fur­ther contention is that the applicant Smt. Kusum Lata is working in a private school and is earning Rs. 1,000/- per month. He made accusation against the applicant that she is having illicit relations with her brother-in-law Hari Lal and it is at the be­hest of Hari Lal that the maintenance appli­cation has been filed just to harass the op­posite party. It was also informed that the opposite party has filed a suit for Restitu­tion of Conjugal Rights and another suit under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody, of the two daughters. The applicant Kusum Lata examined herself as APW1 and Durjan as APW2. 3. The opposite party Brij Behari ex­amined himself as OPW1, Hari Prasad as OPW2 and Ashok Kumar as OPW3. The learned lower Court after consider­ing the evidence came to the conclusion that the applicant Smt. Ksum Lata was having valid reasons for living separately, she is not having any income to maintain herself and her daughters and further that the opposite party Brij Behari is having that much income that he can easily part with Rs. 2,000/- per month for the maintenance of his wife and daughters. It is against this order dated 9.5.2006 that the revision has been filed. In the revision, I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA. The notice of the revision was served upon opposite party Smt. Kusum Lata but she did not appear. Learned Counsel for the revisionist ar­gued that the learned Lower Court has given an illegal finding that the opposite party has married another girl as there was no evidence on record to come to that con­clusion. It was also argued that the opposite party Brij Behari was always willing to keep his wife with him along with two daughters. The applicant herself was not willing to live with the opposite party. It was also argued that the opposite party Brij Behari was always willing to keep his wife with him along with two daughters. The applicant herself was not willing to live with the opposite party. The opposite party even filed a suit under sec­tion 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the Restitution of Conjugal Rights and also moved the Court under the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of the two daughters so that they may be maintained properly. The learned lower Court without considering these facts recorded finding against the opposite party and wrongly allowed the maintenance to the applicant. It was further argued that the maintenance awarded to the applicants is excessive and the opposite party is not in a position to pay mat much amount to the applicants. His contention is that there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record with re­gard to the income of the opposite party and in these circumstances the amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month is highly excessive. 4. Learned AGA in reply argued that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court. The Court after considering the evidence produced by the applicants as well as other evidence available on the record rightly came to the conclusion that the applicant Smt. Kusum Lata is living separately for good reasons and she is not having any income to maintain herself and her two daughters. His further contention is that it is proved on record that the opposite party has sufficient income and is in a position to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to the applicants for their maintenance. 5. In the Lower Court, the applicant filed copy of the order passed by the Judi­cial Magistrate in complaint case- Smt. Kusum Lala v. Brij Behari and others by which the opposite party Brij Behari and others have been summoned for the offence under section 494/109 IPC. On the basis of this document as well as considering the evidence of the applicant and APW1 Durjan, the learned Lower Court has observed that the opposite party Brij Behari has married a second girl. However, I find that this finding is not in accordance with the evidence on record. On the basis of this document as well as considering the evidence of the applicant and APW1 Durjan, the learned Lower Court has observed that the opposite party Brij Behari has married a second girl. However, I find that this finding is not in accordance with the evidence on record. Merely because the opposite party has been summoned by the Court of Magistrate on the basis of ex-parte evidence for the offence under section 494/109 IPC, it cannot be concluded that the opposite party has remarried. Similarly the evidence of the applicant and Durjan is not the primary evidence with regard to the second marriage of the opposite party Brij Behari. Neither of them have attended the second marriage and as such they are not in a position to depose that the opposite party has married with other girl, namely, Rusa. Their evidence is of hearsay nature. However, this fact does not make any dif­ference because learned Lower Court has categorically written in its judgment that several rounds of reconciliation proceed­ings had taken place but the opposite party did not take the applicant with him al­though the applicant Smt. Kusum Lata was ready to go with her husband. The learned Lower Court also came to the conclusion that opposite party never made any at­tempt to bring his wife from her parental house and to take her with him. It has come in the evidence of the applicant that she was being treated with cruelty on account of the fact that she could not give birth to male child and only two daughters were born from this wedlock. Cruel treatment on this ground is not unknown to the Indian society and this reason appears to be be­hind the desertion of the applicant and her externment from the marital home. 6. Apart from above, the opposite party Brij Behari has also levelled a charge against his wife that she is having illicit relations with her brother-in-law Hari Lal. This fact has been alleged in the written statement and has also been stated on oath. If a person is suspicious about the fidelity of his wife how he can treat her with love and affection. This suspicion is bound to reflect in his behavior towards his wife. These circumstances indicate that it was the husband opposite party who turned the wife out of home and compelled her to live as a destitute. If a person is suspicious about the fidelity of his wife how he can treat her with love and affection. This suspicion is bound to reflect in his behavior towards his wife. These circumstances indicate that it was the husband opposite party who turned the wife out of home and compelled her to live as a destitute. Even otherwise, there ap­pears no reasonable ground for a wife having two daughters to leave the house of her husband and live with her parents. The learned Lower Court made various attempts to settle the matter between the parties by reconciliation and it has specifically been mentioned in the order sheet dated 16.3.2004 that although the applicant Smt. Kusum Lata is ready to live with her hus­band, the husband is not willing to take his wife with him and he postponed this arrangement on various dates. The learned Lower Court then ultimately fixed the case for evidence. This observation of the learned Lower Court leads the Court to inescapable conclusion that it is the hus­band who has left his wife as a destitute and his daughters as orphans. Thus there is reasonable ground with the wife to live separately from her husband. The finding of the Court below in this regard is hereby confirmed. Now comes the question of mainte­nance of wife and daughters. The applicant Smt. Kusum Lata has categorically stated that she is unable to maintain herself and her daughters as she does not do any work. The opposite party Brij Behari tried to ar­gue that the applicant is working in a pri­vate school and is earning Rs. 1,000/- per month but there is not an iota of evidence on record to prove these facts. The learned Lower Court has recorded a categorical finding in this regard and the same is also confirmed. Learned Counsel for the opposite party Brij Behari argued that the opposite party is not having any income so as to part with the money for the maintenance of his wife and two daughters. In this regard also, the learned Lower Court has come to the con­clusion that the opposite party is having sufficient means to provide maintenance to his wife and daughters. I have also scanned the evidence in this regard. 7. In the written statement the op­posite party made an incorrect assertion that he is unemployed . In this regard also, the learned Lower Court has come to the con­clusion that the opposite party is having sufficient means to provide maintenance to his wife and daughters. I have also scanned the evidence in this regard. 7. In the written statement the op­posite party made an incorrect assertion that he is unemployed . However, when he was cross-examined, he admitted that he is having three bighas of agricultural land and from the agricultural income he is maintaining his parents, brothers and sis­ters and the expenses of the marriages are also borne by the agriculture income. How­ever, the opposite party did not file any document regarding the extent of agricul­tural land and it appears that the same was done with an intent to conceal the fact that the opposite party is having so much of land with him. The opposite party's wit­ness Hari Prasad has stated in the cross-examination that the opposite party Brij Behari is owning 5 to 6 bighhas of land. Thus there is sufficient agricultural income of the husband. Apart from this, it has been stated by the applicant Smt. Kusum Lala that the opposite party is practicing as a Doctor at two different places. There is no evidence that the opposite party is having any professional degree in this regard but as the learned Lower Court has mentioned, quacks are earning a lot of money in the villages by practising as medical men. Thus there is ample evidence on record to show that the opposite party is having sufficient income to maintain his wife and two daughters. 8. Learned Counsel for the revision­ist argued that the revisionist had filed a suit for restoration of conjugal rights which shows his intention to keep the applicant with him. However, from a perusal of the Lower Court judgment as well as the rec­ord, it is evident that the opposite party did not file any copy of the plaint of the suit instituted under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He even did not disclose the date fixed in the case. Thus there is no evi­dence on record that the opposite party had filed any such suit. So far the case under the Guardians & Wards Act is concerned, no details have been given regarding that case also. He even did not disclose the date fixed in the case. Thus there is no evi­dence on record that the opposite party had filed any such suit. So far the case under the Guardians & Wards Act is concerned, no details have been given regarding that case also. Even otherwise till the custody of the children is not given to the opposite party, he is liable to maintain his daughters. The learned Lower Court has written a reasoned judgment considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and has awarded the maintenance to the wife @ Rs. 1000/- per month w.e.f. 21.9.2005 and Rs. 500/- each to the two daughters from the same date. These are findings of fact, which are not to be disturbed by the Revisional Court as there is no illegality or impropri­ety in these findings. The revision is accordingly dismissed.