JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 24.5.2013 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2012. 2. Key facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent filed an application under sections 12 read with sections 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba bearing Case No. 347-1/10. According to the averments contained in the application, she was legally wedded wife of petitioner Hitesh Tandon. The marriage between the parties was solemnized according to the Hindu rites and customs prevailing in the area. Petitioner kept her nicely for about few days after the marriage. He started maltreating the respondent. He also used to give beatings to her. She tolerated inhuman beahaviour of the petitioner in the hope that he would mend his ways with the passage of time. He also levelled allegations of unchastity against her. He used to make sarcastic remarks against her. She was deprived of basic necessities. She was turned out from matrimonial house after administering beatings on 4.8.2010. Petitioner was also proclaiming that he has solemnized second marriage at Dharamshala. Petitioner is hail and hearty. Monthly income of the petitioner is Rs. 30,000/-. She has no source of income. She has no house to live. 3. Petitioner filed reply to the application. He has denied the allegations made in the application. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the application on 23.6.2012. Petitioner was prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence against the respondent. He was ordered to provide at least one room, kitchen and bathroom in the shared house. He and his relatives were restrained from entering in the shared house in which she was residing. He was also restrained from alienating or disposing of room allotted in the shared house to the respondent. She was awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of filing the application, i.e. 20.10.2010. Petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2012 against the order dated 23.6.2012 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba dismissed the appeal on 24.5.2013. Hence, the present petition. 4. Mr. Ramesh Sharma has vehemently argued that both the courts below have not correctly appreciated the evidence. Petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2012 against the order dated 23.6.2012 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba dismissed the appeal on 24.5.2013. Hence, the present petition. 4. Mr. Ramesh Sharma has vehemently argued that both the courts below have not correctly appreciated the evidence. According to him, respondent herself has started quarreling with the petitioner and has left the matrimonial house. She has taken Rs. four lakhs from the petitioner and has spent the same during election. Petitioner has never given beatings to the respondent. Income of his client was Rs. 6,500/- per month. His services were terminated on 16.12.2012. He had opened a clinic in the name of Himalayan Health Care Clinic of Electro Homoeopathy at village Sankha, P.O. Kilod, Tehsil and District Chamba. He was unable to earn sufficient money. He was living in rented house and was spending Rs. 1,000/- per month. 5. Mr. Parveen Chauhan has supported the order and judgment rendered by both the courts below. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 7. Respondent has appeared as AW-1. According to her, the marriage was solemnized on 6.8.2009. She was kept properly when her mother-in-law was alive. Petitioner used to give her beatings. Her husband was working in Atal Savasthay Seva and was earning between Rs. 15,000/- to 20,000/- per month. He has also opened a clinic at place Panela. Bank balance of the petitioner was Rs. 15 to 20 lakhs. She required a room, kitchen and bath room and Rs. 4,000/- to 5,000/- per month as maintenance. 8. Respondent’s father Pardeep Kumar has appeared as AW-2. According to him, marriage between the parties was solemnized in the month of August, 2009. Respondent was treated properly till her mother-in-law was alive. Thereafter, his son-in-law and his relatives started torturing her. Petitioner was earlier running a medical store at place Panela and thereafter he started working in Atal Savasthay Seva and was earning Rs. 20,000/- to 25,000/- per month. His mother was retired as a C.D.P.O. Petitioner has received a sum of Rs. 20 to 25 lakhs from his mother on retirement. He was the only son of his parents. 9. Petitioner has appeared as RW-1. He was having cordial relations with the respondent. He had opened a shop at place Panela. Thereafter, he closed his shop. His mother was retired as a C.D.P.O. Petitioner has received a sum of Rs. 20 to 25 lakhs from his mother on retirement. He was the only son of his parents. 9. Petitioner has appeared as RW-1. He was having cordial relations with the respondent. He had opened a shop at place Panela. Thereafter, he closed his shop. Respondent used to quarrel with him. His father paid Rs. 1.5 lakhs for B. Ed. training to the respondent. His father had given him Rs. 4 lakhs for business. However, the same was spent by respondent during election. She also purchased jewelry. Thereafter, she left the matrimonial house. She was residing with her parents. Income of his father-in-law was Rs. 30,000/- to 35,000/-. His father was having four rooms house at Jullakari. His father was Naib Tehsildar. His mother has received a sum of Rs. 13,32,816/-. 10. RW-2 Behmi Ram is the father of the petitioner. According to him, respondent asked him to pay her Rs. 1.5 lakhs since she wanted to do B. Ed. training. She left the house of his son. He paid Rs. 4 lakhs to his son to start his own business. His son told that it was taken by the respondent. Income of respondent’s father was Rs. 35,000/- to 40,000/-. Income of his son was Rs. 6,500/- per month. 11. RW-3 Dhano Devi has deposed that she did not know anything about the case. She has never threatened the respondent. 12. RW-4 Pushpa has deposed that respondent was kept nicely. She has never seen the parties quarreling. Respondent was residing with her parents. Respondent has left the company without any reason. 13. What emerges from the evidence discussed hereinabove is that marriage between the parties was solemnized in the month of August, 2009 according to Hindu rites and customs prevailing in the area. Respondent was treated properly and nicely till her mother-in-law was alive. Thereafter, petitioner has started giving beatings to her. She was given severe beatings on 4.8.2010. She was turned out of her house. She was forced to live with her parents. Income of the petitioner was Rs. 20,000/- to 25,000/- per month as per the statements of AW-1 Manmohini and AW-2 Pardeep Kumar. He was working in Atal Savasthay Seva. House of petitioner’s father comprises of 4-5 rooms. There is nothing on record to prove that respondent has sufficient source of income. She was forced to live with her parents. Income of the petitioner was Rs. 20,000/- to 25,000/- per month as per the statements of AW-1 Manmohini and AW-2 Pardeep Kumar. He was working in Atal Savasthay Seva. House of petitioner’s father comprises of 4-5 rooms. There is nothing on record to prove that respondent has sufficient source of income. It is the duty of the petitioner to maintain his wife and not to commit any domestic violence against her. There is nothing on record to prove that petitioner has given a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs to the respondent and she has spent the same during election. Petitioner has not led any evidence that his father has given money to the respondent to do B. Ed. training. Petitioner cannot be absolved of his duty to look after and maintain his wife merely on the ground that her father’s income is between Rs. 25,000/- to 30,000/- per month. Petitioner’s father was working as Naib Tehsildar and his mother has also retired as C.D.P.O. Respondent has not left her matrimonial house voluntarily, but she has been forced to leave the house. Both the courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence led by the parties and the order and judgment passed by the courts below do not warrant any interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.