ORDER : This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05-5-2007 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sagar in M.J.C. No. 151/06, whereby the application filed by the respondents under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code has been allowed and the applicant has been directed to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs. 1,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 500/- per month to respondent No. 2. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 was married with applicant on 18-5-2001. Her parents have given dowry articles to the applicant in the marriage but he was not satisfied. Immediately after the marriage he started demanding cash and Maruti Car. He misbehaved with her family members at the time of reception. He used to drink and cause her marpeet. He misbehaved with her and subjected her to cruelty. When she was pregnant he kicked at her abdomen. She was admitted at Nursing Home by her mother for the treatment but the applicant did not come there. On 18-2-2002 one son was begotten by her but the applicant did not come to see his son also. He doubted her character and said that this son is not of him. He filed an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. She appeared in that case but ultimately the case was compromised and he assured to keep her well but after two months he again started misbehaving and beating her. She was turned out from her matrimonial house and since then she is residing with her mother. She also lodged F.I.R. at Mahila Police Station, Sagar on the basis of which the offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code was registered against the applicant and others. Since he has deserted her, therefore, she is living separately. She has no means of earning. Whereas the applicant is earning Rs. 10,000/- and he has also other means of income, therefore, she filed an application under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code before the Family Court, Sagar to award maintenance. 3. Since he has deserted her, therefore, she is living separately. She has no means of earning. Whereas the applicant is earning Rs. 10,000/- and he has also other means of income, therefore, she filed an application under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code before the Family Court, Sagar to award maintenance. 3. The applicant resisted the application by submitting his reply and denied the allegations of ill-treatment, misbehaviour, harassment, marpeet and demand of dowry article mainly contending that she is living separately without any just cause, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. It was also contended that she is an educated woman and earning by teaching in private school and tuition, therefore, she is able to maintain herself whereas the applicant is earning only Rs. 1200/- per month. He does not have sufficient means to maintain her. 4. Both the parties adduced evidence. Trial Court after considering their evidence found that the respondent No. 2 is unable to maintain herself and her son whereas the applicant has sufficient means to maintain but is neglecting and refusing to maintain her without any sufficient cause hence the application under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code was allowed and the applicant was directed to pay maintenance to respondent No. 1 at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- and to respondent No. 2 at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. Being aggrieved by that order the instant revision has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of revision. 5. Shri Ramesh Tamrakar, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the court below has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Respondent No. 1 is able to maintain herself. The applicant is earning Rs. 1200/- per month whereas the court below has directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month to respondents. The respondent No. 1 has failed to prove the income of the applicant. She is living separately without any sufficient cause hence not entitled for any maintenance. 6. On the contrary, Shri A. K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order mainly contending that the respondent No. 1 is not able to maintain herself whereas the applicant has sufficient means to provide maintenance. Since she is apprehending danger to her life therefore residing separately and is entitled to be maintained by her husband. 7. 6. On the contrary, Shri A. K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order mainly contending that the respondent No. 1 is not able to maintain herself whereas the applicant has sufficient means to provide maintenance. Since she is apprehending danger to her life therefore residing separately and is entitled to be maintained by her husband. 7. The main point for consideration in this revision is that whether the court below has committed any illegality in awarding the maintenance to the respondents. 8. It is admitted fact that the respondent No. 1 is the married wife of applicant and respondent No. 2 is born out of their wedlock. She has clearly stated in her evidence that she is not doing any work. She has no any means of her income. She is residing with her mother. No doubt she is an educated woman and previously she was working at Amreen Higher Secondary School but she has stated that presently she is not working there. She has denied the earning by tuition. 9. Krishna Bai (AW-2) who is the mother of respondent No. 1 Vandana has also supported her evidence by deposing the fact that there is no source of income of her daughter. 10. Applicant Manish Tiwari has given evidence that the respondent No. 1 is serving in Amreen Higher School and getting Rs. 4000/- as salary and also earning Rs. 3,000/- by tuition but Ku. Sudha Tiwari (NAW-2) does not know the income of respondent No. 1. 11. Thus the applicant has tried to establish that the respondent No. 1 is doing job but he has not produced any documentary evidence to show that presently she is working in that school and getting salary. No evidence has been adduced regarding the earning by tuition. Thus this fact is not established that the respondent No. 1 is able to maintain herself. 12. Vandana Tiwari (AW-1) has deposed that applicant is working in Rural Environment Society and getting Rs. 10,000/- per month. He has also a house at Itwara Bazar, Sagar and is earning Rs. 25,000/- per month by letting that house and he has no any other dependant upon him. Her evidence is supported by the evidence of her mother Krishna Bai. Thus the evidence has been adduced to establish the fact that the applicant has sufficient means to maintain and support his wife and minor son. 25,000/- per month by letting that house and he has no any other dependant upon him. Her evidence is supported by the evidence of her mother Krishna Bai. Thus the evidence has been adduced to establish the fact that the applicant has sufficient means to maintain and support his wife and minor son. 13. On the contrary, Manish Tiwari (NAW-1) has deposed that he is earning only Rs. 1200/- per month and has produced certificate of his salary Ex.D-1. He has also stated that the house does not belong to him. Ku. Sudha Tiwari (NAW-2) has given evidence that this house belong to her and has filed the document Ex.D-2. Thus he does not own this house. The applicant is hale and hearty. He is able-bodied person of 34 years of age. He has earning capacity. He has sufficient means to maintain his wife and minor son. 14. Vandana Tiwari (AW-1) and Krishana Bai (AW-2) have given sufficient evidence that applicant used to demand dowry, harass her, used to drink and cause her marpeet, misbehaved her and subjected her to cruelty. She has lodged F.I.R. Ex.P-1 on the basis of which the offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code was registered against the applicant and his other relatives. He kicked her at abdomen while she was pregnant. She was admitted at Hospital but he did not even turn up to see her. At the time of delivery she was also admitted in hospital. The expenses were borne by her mother but the applicant did not even come there. She was turned out from her matrimonial house and the applicant has never gone to take her back. No notice was sent to her in this regard. He drinks and used to cause her marpeet. This fact is also established by Ex.D-2. Thus she is apprehending danger to her life, therefore, residing separately with her mother. The reason for living separately is sufficient and hence she is entitled for getting the maintenance even living separately. Respondent No. 2 Aryan is only of about 5-6 years of age. He is minor. He is entitled to get the maintenance from his father. Thus it is established that the applicant has neglected or refused to maintain his wife and minor son without any sufficient cause. He has means to support and maintain the respondents. Respondent No. 2 Aryan is only of about 5-6 years of age. He is minor. He is entitled to get the maintenance from his father. Thus it is established that the applicant has neglected or refused to maintain his wife and minor son without any sufficient cause. He has means to support and maintain the respondents. She herself is unable to maintain herself and her son respondent No. 2. The Court below has dealt with every aspect of the matter and rightly came to the conclusion that the respondents are entitled to get maintenance from applicant. There is no illegality, irregularity, impropriety or perversity in the finding of the trial Court hence the same is hereby affirmed. The revision is meritless and deserves to be dismissed. 15. Consequently, this revision fails and is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the court below is hereby affirmed.