Order : This revision application is directed against the order dated 27.02.2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 2013, whereby he allowed the application filed by opposite party no. 2 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of order. 2. Sri Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in fact no notice served upon the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 had filed Vakalatnama in the court below on his behalf. Accordingly, it is submitted that the ex-parte order passed by the court below cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that in the maintenance petition opposite party no. 2 had prayed for Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance, but the court below awarded maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- which is beyond the prayer made by the opposite party no. 2. Accordingly, he submits that impugned order may be set aside and case be remitted back to the court below for passing fresh order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the court below has not given reason for coming to the conclusion that the opposite party no.2 is entitled for Rs. 10,000/-, thus on that ground also the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is submitted that petitioner is ready to keep his wife, therefore, the present application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. 3. On the other hand, Sri Afaque Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that the petitioner has not filed any application in the court below even after passing of the impugned order that the Vakalatnama filed on his behalf by an advocate is forged Vakalatnama. Even in the revision application, petitioner nowhere stated that his signature on the aforesaid Vakalatnama is forged. Accordingly, Sri Afaque Ahmad submits that now it does not lie in the mouth of petitioner to say that the aforesaid Vakalatnama has been filed by the opposite party no. 2 in the court below with a view to extract ex-parte order. It is then submitted that while passing the order of maintenance the learned court below considered that the petitioner is working in the Indian Army as Office Assistant and getting salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month. 2 in the court below with a view to extract ex-parte order. It is then submitted that while passing the order of maintenance the learned court below considered that the petitioner is working in the Indian Army as Office Assistant and getting salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month. It is submitted that P.W.-1 & 2 had also deposed and stated in their evidence that the petitioner is working in Army and his monthly salary is about Rs. 35,000/-. Sri Afaque Ahmad submits that in this Court petitioner has annexed his salary slip in the rejoinder, which also shows that after statutory deduction, Rs. 25,030/- credited in his bank account. Aforesaid salary slip shows that without deduction his salary is Rs. 33,074/-, which is inconsonance with the evidence given by P.W.-1 and 2. It is submitted by Sri Ahmad that admittedly Opposite party no. 2 is the wife of the petitioner. Under the said circumstance, she is entitled for maintenance. He then submits that it is an admitted position that the opposite party no. 2 had filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and also a case under the Domestic Violence Act, because the petitioner used to harass and torture her. It is submitted that this fact stated by the opposite party no. 2 in her evidence. Accordingly, Sri. Ahmad submits that the opposite party no. 2 had sufficient reason for not residing with the petitioner. It is submitted that the learned court below considered all the aspects of the matter and then come to the conclusion that the opposite party no. 2 is entitled for maintenance. 4. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. From perusal of the order sheet of the lower court record, I find that on two occasions notice issued against the petitioner, but the same returned back. But from perusal of order dated 21.06.2014, I find that on that day a lawyer appeared on behalf of petitioner by filing Vakalatnama. Thereafter, several opportunities given to the petitioner for filing his show cause, but no such show cause filed by him. Constrained with the same, the learned court below has proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner. The allegation of the petitioner that his Vakalatnama was filed by the opposite party no. 2 has been denied by the opposite party no. 2. Thereafter, several opportunities given to the petitioner for filing his show cause, but no such show cause filed by him. Constrained with the same, the learned court below has proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner. The allegation of the petitioner that his Vakalatnama was filed by the opposite party no. 2 has been denied by the opposite party no. 2. From perusal of the lower court record, I find that even after knowing about the impugned order, petitioner has not filed any application in the court below for taking any action against the opposite party no. 2 for filing forged Vakalatnama on his behalf. Even in the revision application, petitioner has not stated that the signature on the aforesaid Vakalatnama filed on 21.06.2014 does not belongs to him. In course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the said signature is of the petitioner. Under the aforesaid circumstance, only on the basis of bald statement of the petitioner that the aforesaid Vakalatnama has been filed by the opposite party no. 2, the impugned order cannot be disturbed. In fact the petitioner has not been able to prove that the said Vakalatnama was filed by the opposite party no. 2 on his behalf. Thus, the aforesaid contention of Sri. Ashutosh Anand is hereby rejected. 5. Now coming to the next contention, I find that the learned court below had discussed the evidence of witnesses and had stated that the petitioner is working in Army. In paragraph no. 2 of the judgment, the learned court below mentioned that the salary of the petitioner is Rs. 30,000/- and he also earned Rs. 1.50 lacs per annum from agriculture. In paragraph no. 6 while discussing the evidence of P.W.-3, the learned court below has further considered that the husband of the opposite party no.2 is doing service in Army. Again in paragraph no. 7 of the judgment, the learned court below after considering the evidences adduced by the opposite party no. 2, had concluded that the salary of the petitioner is Rs. 35-40 thousand per month. Thus, the court below has come to the conclusion that the opposite party no. 2 is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance. The aforesaid findings of the court below appears to be consonance with the evidence of witnesses adduced by opposite party no. 2, because P.W.-1 at paragraph no. 35-40 thousand per month. Thus, the court below has come to the conclusion that the opposite party no. 2 is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance. The aforesaid findings of the court below appears to be consonance with the evidence of witnesses adduced by opposite party no. 2, because P.W.-1 at paragraph no. 5 of his deposition has stated that his son-in-law is getting Rs. 35,000/- per month, whereas P.W.-2 at paragraph no. 10 has stated that the salary of the petitioner is about Rs. 35-40 thousand. This fact is also stated by P.W.-3 (opposite party no. 2) at paragraph no. 10 of her deposition. It is an admitted position that the opposite party no. 2 is the wife of petitioner. Under the said circumstance, in my view, she is entitled for maintenance. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present case is not required to be remanded in view of the judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (4) JCR 669 (Jhr.) because a revisional court has got the power to alter the finding of the court below while maintaining its order. Since, after considering the evidence adduced by the opposite party no. 2, I am of the view that the petitioner is liable to pay the maintenance to the opposite party no. 2, therefore, for the same purpose the case is not required to be remitted back. 6. Now coming to the third contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to keep opposite party no. 2 as his wife, therefore as per Section 125 (4) of the Cr.P.C. she is not entitled for maintenance, cannot be accepted, because P.W.-3 (opposite party no. 2) has categorically stated in her deposition at paragraph no. 8 that she has been tortured by her husband at Ranikhet, where she used to reside with her husband. It is well settled that if the husband used to torture and/or harass the wife for illegal demands, then the wife has sufficient reason to stay away from her husband. Under the aforesaid circumstance, in my view, the mischief of Section 125 (4) of the I.P.C. has no application in the facts of the case. 7. Now coming to the last contention of Sri Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner that the court below had awarded Rs. Under the aforesaid circumstance, in my view, the mischief of Section 125 (4) of the I.P.C. has no application in the facts of the case. 7. Now coming to the last contention of Sri Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner that the court below had awarded Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance per month, which is beyond the prayer made by the petitioner appears to be correct. Because in the maintenance petition opposite party no. 2 has prayed for Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance. There is nothing in the L.C. Record to show that the prayer portion has been amended by the opposite party no. 2. Under the said circumstance, only by making a oral submission in the court below that opposite party no. 2 is entitled for Rs. 17,000/- per month as maintenance, the same cannot be awarded. Thus, I find that the learned court below had committed error in accepting the aforesaid submission of the opposite party no. 2. In that view of the matter the award of Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I modify the final order passed by the court below and direct that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 as maintenance from date of order of the court below. 8. With the aforesaid modification in the amount of maintenance, I dismiss this revision application.