ORDER : The Claimant Shubha Devi has filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. against the husband Ashok Yadav. The said application has been numbered as Maintenance Case No. 59 of 2008. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.4.2014 passed by learned Principal District Judge Family Court, Koderma in the said maintenance case, the instant revision application has been filed by the husband. 2. The applicant Shubha devi claims to be the wife of the Ashok Yadav. Shubha Devi states that after spending two years in her matrimonial home without any problem, her in-laws along with Ashok Yadav started torturing her on the ground, she is not able to bear a child. She further states that there was an attempt to kill her and panchayati was held on several times, but nothing fruitful happened. Because of the dowry demand and torture and also because of the fact that the husband has solemnized second marriage with one Babita Devi. She further stated that an F.I.R. has been lodged on 08.05.2008 on the ground that there was an attempt by the Ashok Yadav and his family members on 02.05.2008 to set her on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil. Her husband, she claims, is earning Rs. 12,000/- per month and also has an agricultural income Rs.60,000/- per annum. 3. The wife has claimed that an F.I.R. has been lodged at local police station on 08.05.2008 by the claimant on the ground that there was an attempt to murder her by sprinkling kerosene oil by the husband and his family members. This is a good ground for the wife not to stay with her husband and claim maintenance. 4. The husband appeared but failed to file any show cause which fact has been recorded in paragraph no.2 of the judgment. The evidence were led on behalf of the parties and from the tenor of the evidence two issues were framed which are as follows:- (i) Whether there had been a subsisting marriage between the applicant and O.P. before filing of the case; and (ii) Whether the applicant has been able to make out a fit case for allowing maintenance U/s. 125 Cr.P.C. or not.? 5. 5. The Court below answered both the issues in favour of the wife and has held that the wife is the legally married wife of the Ashok Yadav and she is entitled to get a maintenance at the rate of Rs.4500/- per month. 6. Challenging the said order, the husband has preferred this Revision Application. 7. Heard, learned counsel for both the parties and also after going through the records, I find that the Court below found that Shubha Devi is the wife of Ashok Yadav. Though Ashok Yadav has denied the relationship of husband and wife between him and Shubha Devi, but the Court below after going through the evidence has held otherwise. 8. The Court below has rightly held that since there was no pleadings on behalf of the husband that Shubha Devi is not a legally married wife, therefore, the onus is shifted on the husband to establish the denial of marriage by independent and cogent evidence. From the judgment, it transpires that the witnesses of the husband have stated that Shubha Devi was residing with Ashok Yadav in his house. The Court below after going through Exhibit-1, which is a certified copy of the F.I.R. of Jainagar, P.S. Case No. 31 of 2008, has concluded that Subha Devi daughter of Bodi Yadav is the legally married wife of Ashok Yadav. There is nothing on the record to take any other contrary view. Thus, the finding of the Court below that Shubha Devi is the wife of Ashok Yadav cannot be interfered with. 9. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimant has claimed that opposite party is a pocklen driver and he is earning sufficient amount. The witnesses on behalf of the opposite party are not consistent on this point. O.P.W no.2 submits that he does not know whether the husband is a pocklen driver or not, but states that he has agricultural land. Similarly, the opposite party-Ashok Yadav himself, has deposed, but stated that he is a majdoor. 10. The witnesses of the opposite parties have not stated that what is the income earned by Ashok Yadav. From the evidence, it is quite clear that he is an able bodied person and he is earning. Similarly, the opposite party-Ashok Yadav himself, has deposed, but stated that he is a majdoor. 10. The witnesses of the opposite parties have not stated that what is the income earned by Ashok Yadav. From the evidence, it is quite clear that he is an able bodied person and he is earning. In that view of the fact, the amount of maintenance, so fixed by the Court below, at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month is absolutely correct and needs no interference. The husband is duty bound to maintain his wife. Thus the amount so assessed by the learned Court in just and proper. 11. On the observations made above, the impugned order needs no interference. This revision application is dismissed. Revision dismissed.