JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. The applicant, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., seeks to quash the order dated 24.03.2009, passed by Sessions Judge, Almora, in criminal revision no. 26 of 2008, Kailash Chandra Kandpal vs Smt. Beena Kandpal as also the order dated 30.08.2008, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 26 of 2008, Smt. Beena Kandpal vs Kailash Chandra Kandpal under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. 2) Smt. Beena Kandpal (wife) filed an application against Kailash Chandra Kandpal (husband) for grant of maintenance allowance under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora. The same was contested by the husband. Evidence was adduced by the parties. After considering the evidence on record, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora, vide judgment and order dated 30.08.2008, allowed the application of the wife. Husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to his wife as maintenance allowance. Aggrieved against the order dated 30.08.2008, a criminal revision was preferred by the husband, which criminal revision was dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.03.2009. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. was moved by the applicant-husband. 3) This fact is under no dispute that the parties were married to each other. It was alleged by the wife that on 18.06.2006, she was ousted from her matrimonial home. Her streedhan was not returned to her by her husband and in-laws. Respondent-wife said that her husband, who was having sufficient means, ignored and refused to maintain her. Respondent-wife also said that she was unable to maintain herself. It was stated that the husband was working in an Intermediate College at Ghaziabad. The monthly income, as on the date of filing of the application, was Rs.5,000/-. Husband was also earning another Rs.5,000/- by arranging tuitions. Her father-in-law was a retired employee of the Education Department. The husband also owned a shop in village Kanda Naula. Thus, the total monthly income of the husband, according to the wife, was Rs.20,000/-. 4) On the other hand, it was said by the husband that his wife was still living in a part of his house, at her matrimonial home. The streedhan was still with the wife. She was working as anganwadi worker and was drawing a salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month. 4) On the other hand, it was said by the husband that his wife was still living in a part of his house, at her matrimonial home. The streedhan was still with the wife. She was working as anganwadi worker and was drawing a salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month. Father of his wife was a Head Master drawing a salary of Rs. 14,000/- per month and the brother-in-law of the husband was Hawaldar in the Indian Army. His wife has sufficient means to earn her livelihood. Three dead children were begotten by the respondent-wife out of their wedlock. When the doctors opined that she was unable to give birth to a child, then only respondent-wife permitted her husband to go for second marriage. Husband started harassing her, no sooner he entered into second marriage. Both the parties entered into the witness box in support of their contentions. 5) There is no room for doubt in the instant case that if the wife was living separately from her husband, there were sufficient reasons for her to stay alone in her matrimonial home. Since the wife was unable to procreate a child, therefore, she permitted her husband to enter into matrimonial alliance with another woman. The husband ignored and ill-treated his first wife, no sooner he went for second marriage. Not only the husband ignored her but, he also ill-treated his first wife, for, she outlived utility for him. 6) Sub-Section (4) of Section 125 of Cr. P.C. provides that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for maintenance from her husband if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband. In the instant case, the wife is living separately from her husband with sufficient and cogent reasons. The husband went for second marriage (of course, with the consent of his first wife) and also harassed and ill-treated her, because he could pull on his life without his first wife. The wife in the instant case was, therefore, living separately from her husband with sufficient reason. There is no evidence on record to show that the wife is able to maintain herself. The wife in the instant case was, therefore, living separately from her husband with sufficient reason. There is no evidence on record to show that the wife is able to maintain herself. 7) If the wife was working as anganwadi worker and was earning something, it cannot be said that she was able to maintain herself in view of principle of law laid down in N. Bose vs D.K. Bose, 1986 (2) H.L.R.R. 58 Orrisa; T. Bhuwneshari vs Radhakrishnan 1989 (1) H.L.R. 100 Madras and C.P. Leela vs M. Bhaskaran, 1985 (1) H.L.R. 780 Madras. 8) An anganwadi worker is paid honorarium and not salary and on the basis of the same it cannot be said that the respondent-wife was able to maintain herself. The same is not the permanent income of the wife. The husband, on the other hand, is a teacher in a school, living in the vicinity of Delhi. It has come on record that husband ignored and refused to maintain his (first) wife and, therefore, she had no option but to take shelter in a dilapidated house at the place of her matrimony. Had the respondent-wife been in possession of sufficient means, why would she be living in a portion of dilapidated house? If her father was a retired Head Master and his brother was working as Hawaldar in the Indian Army, they were not supposed to maintain Beena Kandpal. The husband owed a liability, moral as well as legal, to maintain his wife. To maintain a married daughter, is not the liability of her parents or brothers. Moral and legal duty vests with her husband. 9) Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora, therefore, committed no mistake in holding that the husband, having sufficient means, ignored and refused to maintain his wife, who was unable to maintain herself. 10) When the order dated 30.08.2008 was revised against, learned Sessions Judge, Almora took a similar view and affirmed the findings given by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Criminal revision filed by the husband was accordingly dismissed. Learned trial court gave cogent reasons for allowing the application for grant of maintenance allowance under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. Concurrent findings of two courts below should not be disturbed, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Criminal revision filed by the husband was accordingly dismissed. Learned trial court gave cogent reasons for allowing the application for grant of maintenance allowance under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. Concurrent findings of two courts below should not be disturbed, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Except for the quantum of maintenance allowance thus awarded to the wife, there is no illegality in the findings arrived at by the courts below, and are, therefore, not interferrable. 11) The husband is working as Assistant Teacher in Indian National Intermediate College, Ghaziabad, since 2003. A certificate dated 14.08.2006 issued by Principal of said college is brought on record to show that the monthly income of the husband was Rs. 1,500/-. It is not mentioned in said certificate, whether the same is basic salary or contains the total emoluments. In any way, Rs. 1,500/- cannot be the total emoluments of an Assistant Teacher. If Rs. 1,500/- per month is the basic salary of an Assistant Teacher, his total emoluments must be ranging around Rs. 5,000/- per month. Learned trial court has fixed the same at Rs. 3,000/- per month. No document is filed on behalf of the wife to show that the basic salary of her husband was more than Rs. 1,500/- per month. In the absence of any other documentary piece of evidence, let this Court stick to the calculation made by the trial court. Payment of Rs. 2,000/- as maintenance allowance per month to the wife, when the husband was getting Rs. 3,000/- per month as basic pay, appears to be on the higher side, especially when the wife is living at her matrimonial home (husband is living in Ghaziabad). The amount of maintenance, therefore, calls for interference by this Court. 12) On the basis of aforesaid guesswork, it will be appropriate to direct the husband to pay Rs. 1,600/- as maintenance allowance to his wife every month from the date of passing of the order, i.e., 30.08.2008. 13) While the finding of the trial court as well as of the revisional court recording grant of maintenance allowance to the wife is affirmed, the quantum of maintenance allowance is modified with the direction upon the husband to pay Rs. 1,600/- per month as maintenance allowance to his wife from the date of passing of the initial order. Application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. is disposed of accordingly. 1,600/- per month as maintenance allowance to his wife from the date of passing of the initial order. Application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. is disposed of accordingly. 14) It is further directed that the husband will pay the arrears of the maintenance allowance to his wife in quarterly installment of Rs.10,000/- each. The balance will be adjusted in the fourth and last quarterly installment. The first such installment shall be paid by the husband to his wife on or before 31st October 2013. If there is default in payment of any of the installment, the entire amount (of arrears) may be recovered from the husband forthwith.