ORDER 1. The applicant/husband has preferred this revision under section 397 of CrPC aggrieved by the order dated 9.5.2008 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Gwalior in MCre No. 150/06, whereby ordered for payment of maintenance amount of Rs. 1,200/- per month in favour of the respondent-wife against the applicant. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are, respondent is legally wedded wife of the present applicant, their marriage had taken place on 1.6.2003. At the time when the respondent was living with her husband/present applicant, it is alleged that the applicant had harassed her couple with demand of dowry and due to this respondent-wife is forced to live separately. Thereafter, she had also lodged a FIR against the applicant-husband in the Police Station, on which basis a case under section 498-A of IPC had also been registered against the applicant husband and due to which the respondent -wife is living separately and the present applicant-husband is not paying any maintenance amount to her, therefore, the respondent-wife had filed a petition under section 125 CrPC. before the Family Court, Gwalior. Learned Trial Court after taking the evidence of both the parties by the impugned order allowed the petition filed by the wife under section 125 CrPC and granted maintenance amount of Rs. 1,200/- per month in favour of the respondent-wife. Aggrieved by which the applicant-husband came up before this Court by this revision petition. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant-husband that the respondent wife is living separately without any sufficient reason. She is having M.A. degree and can maintain herself and thus the trial Court has ignored the aforesaid material fact and wrongly granted maintenance amount in favour of the respondent-wife. Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in Deb Narayan Haldar v. Anushree Haldar (Smt.}, reported in (2003) 11 SCC 303 , whereby it is held that "if wife is living separately from her husband without any justifiable ground then she is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband". Therefore, on the aforesaid ground prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 5. Therefore, on the aforesaid ground prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submits that due to the harassment and demand of dowry, the respondent wife is forced to live separately. A criminal litigation is also going on in between the parties and in such circumstances the respondent-wife is having sufficient reason to live separately due to the ill treatment of the husband and thus the trial Court has rightly granted the maintenance amount in favour of the respondent and no grounds are available for any interference in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 6. After appreciation of the evidence on record, it is apparent that a case under section 498-A of IPC is also pending in between the parties with regard to the ill-treatment, harassment and demand of dowry by the applicant-husband from the respondent-wife and in such circumstances due to apprehension of ill-treatment, if the wife is living separately then certainly it cannot be presumed that she is living separately from her husband without any sufficient reason. Therefore, the case law cited by the counsel for the applicant in Deb Narayan Haldar (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. On perusal of the evidence on record, it is apparent that due to harassment and ill-treatment coupled with demand of dowry the respondent-wife is living separately. A criminal case Crime No. 16/2004 is also registered because of ill-treatment of the husband by Mahila Police Station, Gwalior under section 498A of IPC. This case had been registered on 4.3.2004, thereafter the respondent wife has filed this petition under section 125 CrPC for the grant of maintenance. In view of the aforesaid facts and on the basis of the statement of respondent wife, it is apparent that she is entitled to get the maintenance from the husband by living separately. It is also apparent that the applicant-husband is serving in some nursing home and getting pay of Rs. 2,500/- per month as proved by the documentary evidence Exhibit D-2 filed by the applicant-husband himself and on the basis of the aforesaid income if the trial Court has granted the amount of Rs. It is also apparent that the applicant-husband is serving in some nursing home and getting pay of Rs. 2,500/- per month as proved by the documentary evidence Exhibit D-2 filed by the applicant-husband himself and on the basis of the aforesaid income if the trial Court has granted the amount of Rs. 1,200/- per month as maintenance in favour of the wife then it also does not appear to be excessive amount which can be reduced any more. 8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, learned trial Court has rightly granted the maintenance amount of Rs. 1,200/- per month in favour of the respondent -wife and no grounds are available for any interference in the impugned order. 9. Resultantly, the revision petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed accordingly.