ORDER S. Pujahari, J. - I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 30.06.2014 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar. 3. Background of the case is that opposite party No. 1-wife filed a case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) before the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar stating that he had married the present petitioner on 01.05.2002 and the opposite party No.2-daughter was born to their wedlock on 05.01.2005 and they lived together for eight years and thereafter the petitioner kept illegal relationship with another lady and started torturing the opposite party No. 1 -wife and she with her daughter took shelter in her parental house. It. was further stated that she has no sufficient means to maintain herself and her daughter. On the other hand, though the petitioner-husband is doing Real Estate business and also getting house rent and earning Rs. 1,00,000/ - per month, but has wilfully neglected and refused to maintain them, for which they claimed Rs.30,000/- per month towards maintenance. The petitioner-husband appeared and filed-written statement denying the allegations, rather he pleaded that the opposite party No. 1-wife voluntarily deserted him since 25.12.2011. His further case is that she is arrogant, cruel and adamant in nature and she had filed a false 'criminal case bearing G.R. Case No.916 of 2012 on the allegation of torture and dowry demand just to harass him and his family members. He further stated that he is getting a monthly salary of Rs.8000/- only being engaged in a private service and not able to pay the maintenance. The learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar after considering the materials on record allowed the petition and granted maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- to the opposite party No. 1 and Rs. 10,000/- to the opposite party No.2 per month from the date of filing of the application, i.e. 06.12.2012 with further direction to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- and the said order is under challenge in this revision petition. 4. During course of hearing of this revision petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the opposite party No. 1-wife has voluntarily deserted the petitioner-husband and for that, she is riot entitled for any maintenance. 4. During course of hearing of this revision petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the opposite party No. 1-wife has voluntarily deserted the petitioner-husband and for that, she is riot entitled for any maintenance. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to establish the income of the petitioner and the lady, with whom the petitioner is alleged to have kept illicit relationship, has not been impleaded as a party and Ext. 10 should not have been taken into consideration by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar and for these reasons, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties supported the impugned judgment. 6. Perused the materials on record. The marriage between the parties is admitted. So far desertion, P.W. 1 has stated in her evidence that-after marriage, they led happy conjugal life upto 2009 and opposite party No.2 was born to them and then the husband developed illicit relationship with one Namita Rout, for which dispute arose among them and the petitioner-husband tortured per physically and mentally as she protested such illicit relationship. She has further stated that she lodged a complaint before the State Women Commission vide Ext. 1 where the husband and that lady - Namita Rout appeared. She also stated that when the torture became unbearable she left her marital home and on 23.03.2012 she lodged F.I.R. at the Mahila Police Station vide Ext.2. It is significant to note here that the husband (O.P.W. 1) in his evidence before the lower Court admitted that he had given a statement admitting his relationship with Namita Rout. Of course, he had tried to explain that he had given that statement (Ext. 10) as per the dictation of a Madam of the Commission. Such explanation is not acceptable. The own demand of the husband goes to show that he had relationship with another lady-Namita Rout. The petitioner-husband in his evidence has stated that at times the opposite party No.1- wife stopped cooking and used to leave for her parental house and she refused to keep physical relationship with him. He also stated that when he made attempts to bring her back she refused. No evidence has been led to show any attempt of the petitioner-husband to bring back the opposite party No. 1-wife. He also stated that when he made attempts to bring her back she refused. No evidence has been led to show any attempt of the petitioner-husband to bring back the opposite party No. 1-wife. Usually a married Hindu Woman would not tolerate her husband keeping relationship with another lady. Normally married woman with a minor daughter would not leave the marital home throwing their future into uncertainty. 7. The evidence of the opposite party No.1- wife about physicals and mental torture caused to her by the petitioner-husband has remained unshaken. On a combined reading of such evidence, it can be safely held that there was just cause for the opposite party No. 1-wife to leave the marital home. So, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Opposite party No. 1-wife had voluntarily deserted the petitioner-husband is not acceptable irrespective of the fact that Namita Rout has not been impleaded as a party in this case. Rather filing of a divorce case, i.e., C.P. No.46 of 2014 much after institution of the present case falsifies the plea of the petitioner-husband that was interested to take back the opposite No. 1-wife. 8. As regards income, the opposite party No. 1 - wife has proved the R.O. Rs. vide Exts.4 to 7 showing that the petitioner-husband owns substantial landed property and Ext.3 shows he had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of a Builder for construction of a multistoried residential building. The petitioner-husband has also admitted in his cross-examination that he had handed over the land covered under Exts.4 to 7 to the Builder for construction of Apartment in 45:55 sharing basis. Though he pleaded that the opposite party No. 1-wife is running a confectionery shop, but no document has been proved in that regard. The Opposite party No.1- wife has stated in her evidence that the petitioner-husband is not providing anything for their maintenance. On a conjoint reading of the materials on record, it emerges that the petitioner-husband having sufficient means has neglected and refused the opposite party No. 1-wife and daughter who are unable to maintain themselves. 9. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, AIR 2015 SC 2025 , wherein in paragraph-15 it has been held as follows : "15. 9. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, AIR 2015 SC 2025 , wherein in paragraph-15 it has been held as follows : "15. Xxxx xxxx xxxx It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125, Cr.P.C. is for melioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. Xxxx xxxx xxxx 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the settled position of law as cited above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the learned judge, Family Court. Bhubaneswar. There is also no reason to reduce the quantum of maintenance and litigation expenses which seems to be just and proper. 11. Hence, this revision petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. L.C.R. received be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this order. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. Final Result : Dismissed