JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral): This revision was earlier decided on 27th of March 2008, against which respondent appears to have filed Criminal Appeal No. 1648 of 2010, before the Apex Court, which was decided by said court vide its order dated 30th of August 2010, whereby the revision stood remitted for fresh decision by this court. In compliance of said order, the revision is being decided again. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. Learned counsel for the respondent states that she has no instructions in the matter. 3. Brief facts of the case are that revisionist Smt. Renu got married to the respondent Rakesh Kannojia on 16.11.2002, at Dehradun. It is pleaded by the revisionist (wife) that her husband treated her with cruelty. She was alleged that the respondent and his relatives were not happy with the dowry given in the marriage by the parents of the revisionist. She has further stated that she was denied even food at times. She has further alleged that respondent and his relatives used to ask the revisionist to wash blankets etc. at 04:00 A.M., as she has not brought washing machine with her from her parental house. It is specifically alleged that on 13.03.2003, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the revisionist administered her ‘HARPIC’ and her husband did not stop them. She has admitted that she was taken to hospital. She has further pleaded that her husband has sufficient means to pay, and she has no means to maintain herself, as such, she claimed 15,000/- per month as maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 4. The respondent (husband) contested the case and filed his written statement before the trial court in which he admitted that he got married to the revisionist on 16.11.2002, at Dehradun. However, the rest of the pleadings are denied by him. He pleaded that the revisionist deserted him without any sufficient cause. He further pleaded that he had already filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, at Delhi. It is also pleaded by the husband that his monthly income is Rs. 6,000/- per month, and carry home salary is only Rs. 1,580/- per month. 5. He pleaded that the revisionist deserted him without any sufficient cause. He further pleaded that he had already filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, at Delhi. It is also pleaded by the husband that his monthly income is Rs. 6,000/- per month, and carry home salary is only Rs. 1,580/- per month. 5. On going through once again the impugned judgment passed in Case No. 152 of 2003, we find that the trial court has not discussed as to whether the revisionist was unable to maintain herself, nor it discussed whether the husband had means to pay, or not, nor any finding was given whether revisionist had deserted her husband. As such, we find that the trial court in its order passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. without looking into the above facts, has committed grave error of law. We have gone through the evidence on record and found that the revisionist has amply proved that she has no means to maintain herself. She has further proved that her husband has sufficient means to pay. She has further proved that she has compelling reasons to live separately from her husband. Considering the fact that the respondent has admitted that his monthly income is Rs. 6,000/- per month, and the fact relating to economic status of the parties, we once again find that direction to husband to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. would meet the ends of justice. 6. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 07.08.2006, passed in Case No. 152 of 2003, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is set aside. The application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. stands allowed, and the respondent (husband) is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month, as maintenance to the revisionist (wife) from the date of this order.