JUDGMENT M.K. Mudgal, J. 1. The petitioner/husband has filed this revision petition under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29.4.2013 passed by Additional Principal Judge Family Court Gwalior in Misc. Cr. case no. 72 of 2012 whereby, the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance to his wife respondent. 2. The admitted facts of the case are that the marriage of petitioner was solemnized with respondent on 2.3.2008 at Gwalior vide contract letter (letter of guarantee). Earlier, a dispute had arisen between the parties which was later on settled in April, 2009 and since then, the respondent has been living separately in her parental house. 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner got married with the respondent falsely telling her that he was an officer in the government office and claiming himself to be a Brahmin but in fact he was a Bhadoria by caste and was working as a peon in Govt. Kanya Vidyalaya Bhind. Thereafter, the petitioner started harassing the respondent for getting dowry from her parents and on 6.4.2009 after consuming liquor, he beat her, hence, she had to leave him and go to her parental house on 7.4.2009. The petitioner was having a criminal background and a criminal case against the petitioner and his family members under Section under section 393 of IPC and 11, 13 of MPDVPK Act at PS Gohad is pending. Since the petitioner is working in a government school as a peon and getting salary of Rs. 16,000/- per month and having 45 bigha agricultural land yielding income of Rs. 25,000/- per month and as the respondent does not have any source of income to maintain herself, hence, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C claiming maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the petitioner husband. 4. As per trial court's record, the petitioner-husband had appeared before the trial court on 20.3.12 and subsequently on his behalf Advocate Shri Vikas Parashar appeared and sought adjournment to submit reply. The petitioner filed reply of the respondent's petition on 26.4.2014 denying the allegations of the petitioner. However, when the case was fixed for recording the evidence on 13.8.12 neither the petitioner had appeared before the court nor did his advocate. As a result, order for ex-parte proceeding was passed against him and evidence of the respondent was recorded. The petitioner filed reply of the respondent's petition on 26.4.2014 denying the allegations of the petitioner. However, when the case was fixed for recording the evidence on 13.8.12 neither the petitioner had appeared before the court nor did his advocate. As a result, order for ex-parte proceeding was passed against him and evidence of the respondent was recorded. 5. After considering evidence adduced by the respondent/wife, learned trial court vide impugned order dated 29.4.2013 allowed the application and awarded Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance in favour of respondent/wife. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner-husband has preferred this revision before this court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right before the court of Additional District Judge Bhind bearing case No.18/09 which was decided vide judgment dated 10.1.2011 and the court has arrived at the conclusion that the respondent-wife has been living separately without any sufficient reason hence the respondent is not entitled to get any maintenance from the petitioner-husband. The said contention does not have any force as the petitioner does not produce judgment dated 10.1.2011 before the trial court, nor did he appear to depose his statement for rebutting the respondent's evidence. The petitioner- husband has not assigned any proper reason as to why he remained absent before the trial court during pendency of the case when the evidence of the respondent was being recorded by the trial court. On the contrary in para 4D of the revision petition, it has been falsely averred that he was not served any notice giving him an opportunity for being heard in the case whereas he himself and his advocate appeared before the trial court from 20.3.12 up to 19.12.2012. During this period, he did not appear before the trial court on the date of hearing as a result order for ex- parte hearing was passed on 13.8.12 nevertheless, the said order was set-aside by the trial court vide order dated 11.9.12 on being requested by the petitioner. After than he again did not appear on 16.1.13 to pursue his case owing to which ex-parte evidence of the respondent-wife was recorded. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is inferred that sufficient opportunity of hearing was given by the trial court to the petitioner. 7. After than he again did not appear on 16.1.13 to pursue his case owing to which ex-parte evidence of the respondent-wife was recorded. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is inferred that sufficient opportunity of hearing was given by the trial court to the petitioner. 7. In support of his pleadings the respondent-wife got her and mother Meena Sharma (PW.2)'s statement recorded. On perusal of the recorded evidence, it transpires that the findings recorded by the trial court are just and proper as the evidence produced by the respondent has not been rebutted by the petitioner and he himself did not turn up before the court for getting his statement recorded in support of his pleadings. 8. The learned trial court assessed the income of the respondent at Rs.10,200/- per month, in para 7 of the impugned order on the basis of his pay slip. Considering the income of the petitioner, the amount of Rs. 3000/- awarded to the respondent as maintenance does not appear to be excessive. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, this court comes to the conclusion that the learned court has not committed any error in granting the maintenance to the respondent. Therefore, the revision petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Record of the trial Court be sent back along a copy of this order.