JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant petition stands directed against the impugned order recorded on 13.08.2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Una, Camp at Amb, District Una, H.P., in Crl. Revision RBT No. 6/2013/2011 whereby he reversed the verdict pronounced by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1, Amb, District Una, H.P. on an application preferred therebefore by the respondent herein under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under the impugned rendition, the learned Additional Sessions Judge assessed qua the respondent herein maintenance quantified in a sum of Rs.5000/- per month. He pronounced therein qua the aforesaid per mensem amount of maintenance being payable w.e.f. 21.04.2010. Standing aggrieved, the petitioner herein has assailed herebefore the impugned rendition. 2. Uncontrovertedly, the litigating parties herebefore are married partners. An obligation under law is cast upon the husband to maintain his lawfully married wife. On emphatic proof standing adduced qua his neglecting to maintain his wife or refusing to maintain her, would entail upon the trial Magistrate concerned to assess maintenance qua the married spouse unless evidence of immense vigour stands adduced therebfore by the husband qua his married spouse possessing sufficient means to maintain herself. An inference of the husband refusing besides neglecting to maintain his lawfully wedded wife would stand spurred even when his lawfully married spouse stands precluded by strong exceptional compelling reasons to alienate herself from the matrimonial company of her husband. However, the learned trial Magistrate on incisively traversing through the evidence as stood adduced before him, has concluded of the purported incident (s) of physical cruelty perpetrated upon the respondent herein by her husband during the former's stay at her matrimonial home remaining unproven whereupon he concluded of the departure of the respondent herein to her parental home not standing emphatically established to stand founded upon any reasonable ground rather her stay thereat being pretextual whereupon he refused to assess maintenance per mensem qua the respondent herein. 3. 3. Dehors the tenacity or otherwise of the evidence adduced before the learned trial Magistrate displaying the factum of the respondent herein during her stay at her matrimonial home standing subjected to belabourings by her husband, the imperative fact which was enjoined to be pronounced upon was qua the petitioner herein, since his married spouse leaving for her parental home on 17.01.2009 whereat she since thereat has been continuously staying, making sincere genuine efforts to retrieve her to her matrimonial home, efforts whereof standing spurned by the respondent herein, would foster an inference of the respondent herein without any reasonable cause staying at her parental home whereupon she would be dis-entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. Contrarily, on emergence of evidence in display of her husband not making any genuine sincere efforts to retrieve her to her matrimonial home would entail upon him an obligation to maintain her thereat also necessarily with his omitting to retrieve her to her matrimonial home would galvanize an inference of his abandoning her company, concomitantly, thereupon he cannot refuse or neglect to maintain his married spouse despite the latter staying with her parents. 4. For determining the aforesaid factum probandum, an allusion to the evidence germane to it warrants advertence. Though the husband in portrayals of his making sincere efforts to retrieve his married spouse to her matrimonial home has testified qua the factum of the respondent staying at her parental home against his wish standing brought to the notice of Nagar Panchayat and Community Health Sabha. However, the aforesaid testification in display of the husband concerting to retrieve the respondent herein to her matrimonial home lacks vigour for want of it acquiring corroboration from the official concerned of the Nagar Panchayat or Community Health Sabha. The apt sequel arising from the aforesaid omission of the husband to lend corroborative succor to his testification qua his soliciting the support of the functionaries of the Nagar Panchayat and the Community Health Sabha, for retrieving the respondent herein to her matrimonial home warranting a deduction qua his contriving the factum of his making genuine sincere efforts to retrieve his married spouse to his matrimonial company. 5. 5. Furthermore in display of the husband making an arduous, genuine attempt to retrieve his married spouse to her matrimonial home he propagates in his testification qua his standing accompanied by the members of Sawarankar Sudhar Sabha to the parental home of the respondent, visit whereof to the parental home of the respondent not acquiring any success arising from the factum of PW-2 not permitting the visitors to his house to egress his homestead. However, the aforesaid propagation loses its vigour for the reason that an apposite suggestion qua the aforesaid factum stood not put to PW-2 besides with none of the members of Swarankar Sudhar Sabha, who purportedly accompanied the petitioner herein to the parental house of the respondent herein, who however were purportedly not allowed by PW-2 to enter his house not standing examined for thereupon lending succor to the aforesaid propagation. An inevitable sequel of the aforesaid want of adduction of the relevant germane best evidence by the husband in portrayal of his making sincere, genuine efforts to retrieve his married spouse to his matrimonial company, foments an inference of the petitioner herein abandoning the company of the respondent herein whereupon it is to be concluded of his being the errant spouse whereas the respondent herein not being amenable to any imputation of any fault for hers living at her parental home nor also her stay thereat being without any reasonable cause whereupon it is apt to conclude of the husband being enjoined to maintain her even when she is staying at her parental home whereas his neglecting or refusing to maintain her, entails a command upon him from this Court qua his being amenable to pay maintenance to her in the manner as pronounced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 6. It is relevant to advert to the submission made herebefore by the counsel for the respondent qua the petitioner herein instituting before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge a petition for restitution of conjugal rights wherefrom he contends of it personifying the factum of the petitioner herein endeavouring to retrieve the respondent herein to his matrimonial company whereupon he contends of the impugned order warranting interference. Sessions Judge a petition for restitution of conjugal rights wherefrom he contends of it personifying the factum of the petitioner herein endeavouring to retrieve the respondent herein to his matrimonial company whereupon he contends of the impugned order warranting interference. However, the mere institution of a petition for restitution of conjugal rights by the petitioner before the learned District Judge would not per se tantamount to his proving the factum of his thereupon making sincere endeavours to retrieve the respondent herein to his matrimonial company unless a verdict thereupon stood pronounced by the learned District Judge. However, the apposite verdict pronounced by the learned District Judge on a petition preferred before him under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the petitioner herein remains unadduced in evidence. For lack of adduction into evidence of the apposite verdict pronounced by the learned District Judge on the apposite petition preferred therebefore by the petitioner, cannot constrain a conclusion of its mandate standing infracted by the respondent herein whereas only on hers provenly infracting besides disobeying the verdict pronounced by the learned District Judge on an apposite petition constituted before him under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act would stir an inference qua thereupon the respondent herein standing dis-entitled to claim maintenance from her husband in a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Contrarily, for reiteration, for lack of its standing adduced into evidence warrants an inference of its mere institution not galvanizing any thrust to the espousal of the petitioner herein qua his making sincere efforts to retrieve the respondent herein to his matrimonial company nor also it can be concluded qua on its mere institution the respondent herein standing enjoined to return to the matrimonial company of her husband. On the other hand, it appears of the aforesaid apposite petition standing speciously preferred by the petitioner herein before the learned District Judge as a mere contrivance to defeat the claim of the respondent herein for maintenance, conspicuously, when it stood instituted subsequent to the institution of the instant petition by the respondent herein before the learned trial Magistrate concerned. 7. 7. Be that as it may, the factum of the petitioner herein possessing sufficient financial means to defray to his married spouse the quantum of per mensem maintenance as assessed in the impugned order is garnerable from the factum of the father of the petitioner herein disclosing in his testification qua his rearing from his business of a goldsmith an income ranging from 2700 to 2800 whereas with the petitioner herein deposing his earning a salary of Rs.2500/- per month while his standing employed as a helper in the jewelery shop of his father at Naudan, makes a palpable upsurgence of the factum of both the petitioner herein besides his father contriving the factum of the former standing employed as a helper in the goldsmith shop, established by his father at Naudan wherefrom the petitioner is purportedly drawing monthly wages quantified at Rs.2500/-. Also it appears hence of the petitioner in collusion with his father by falsely displaying qua the petitioner herein not possessing sufficient financial means his hence concerting to thwart the claim for maintenance of the respondent herein from him. Furthermore, the factum of the petitioner rearing a false plea of his standing employed as a helper in the goldsmith shop of his father located at Naudan wherefrom he purportedly draws a salary of Rs.2500/- per month stands generated by the factum of (a) bag Ex. P1 holding therein the mobile number of the petitioner herein; (b) with a display occurring in ex.P1 qua the business of a goldsmith shop located at Naudan running in the name and style of Suresh Jewellers, name whereof occurring in Ex.P-1 holds synonymity with the name of the petitioner herein, dispels the factum of the petitioner herein standing employed as a helper in the jewelery business of his father. Contrarily, it portrays of the relevant business of goldsmith standing operated by the petitioner herein wherefrom the ensuing sequel is qua his rearing an income sufficient to maintain his married spouse, the respondent herein. 8. Contrarily, it portrays of the relevant business of goldsmith standing operated by the petitioner herein wherefrom the ensuing sequel is qua his rearing an income sufficient to maintain his married spouse, the respondent herein. 8. Though, the respondent herein had for discountenancing the claim reared by the respondent herein in a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., espoused qua the latter drawing and earning Rs.4000/- per month by working in Swami Viveka Nand Public School besides hers earning another sum of Rs.5000/- per month by doing tuition work yet the aforesaid espousal does not hold any probative worth for want of adduction of relevant best evidence in support thereof comprised in his examining the official concerned of Swami Viveka Nand Public School also for want of his examining the parents of the wards tuitioned by the respondent herein. In sequel, thereto it is apt to conclude qua the respondent herein not possessing sufficient financial means to support herself. 9. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petition and it is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the order rendered on 13.08.2014 in Crl. Revision RBT No. 6/2013/2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II) Una, H.P. is maintained and affirmed. The learned trial Magistrate is directed to, given the evident recalcitrance of the petitioner herein to beget compliance with the orders of this Court ensure by all lawful means forthwith expeditious execution of the orders of this Court. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.