JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for respondent. 2. This revision is directed against the order of the learned CJM, Barpeta dated 31.8.2006 in case No. 380M/2005 under section 125 of the Cr. PC whereby petitioner is directed to pay Rs 1,000 per month maintenance to respondent and her minor daughter Rs. 1,000 per month. 3. Respondent filed the said case seeking maintenance of Rs. 2,000 for her and Rs. 2,000 for her minor daughter stating that even though they consummated the married life, petitioner tortured her demanding dowry of Rs. 22,000 on several times and finally, due to her inability to meet the demand she had been kept in her parental house and she gave birth to a female child there. Even after the birth of the child she was neither taken to her matrimonial home nor was provided maintenance to them, when the petitioner is a school teacher drawing a good salary and owned a 20-bigha land and earning approximately Rs. 16,000 per month from it. 4. Petitioner resisted the allegation by filing written statement to say that he has no such income to provide maintenance to respondent who is residing in her parental house on her own way and there is no such dowry demand as claimed. 5. Parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims and the learned CJM, considering evidence on record, allowed the petition and directed petitioner to pay Rs. 1,000 each per month maintenance to his wife and the minor child by the said order. 6. Challenging the said order this revision is filed contending that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective of law and fact. 7. It is also contended that being LP school teacher drawing a salary of Rs. 4,878 per month, petitioner is not in a position to provide separate maintenance to his wife because he has to maintain his old parents and unemployed brothers, however, he is ready to accept the respondent and her child but unable to pay the maintenance. 8. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as also the evidence on record. 9. 8. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as also the evidence on record. 9. In the given case marriage of the parties and the birth of the child is an admitted position and petitioner has also not denied his status as teacher. The contention that petitioner is still ready to accept his wife but unable to provide maintenance cannot be legally justifiable. As soon as there is a lawful marriage between the parties and birth of a child from the wedlock, petitioner/husband is under obligation to maintain his wife and the child. Merely raising the contention that he is ready to accept his wife would not do; he has to show some good gesture to bring back his wife from her parental house, but no such evidence is found that he ever tried to convince his wife to bring her back. 10. In the evidence of the petitioner as second party in the said case it appears that the petitioner tried to bring his wife back but she did not come. But it is a matter of concern that a dependent wife and that too who is having a minor child in her lap will refuse to come back to the company of her husband unless compelling reasons. 11. Respondent in her evidence stated that only because of assault and torture of the petitioner she is compelled to return to her parental house. 12. There appears to be no illegality and irregularity in the order of the learned trial court. Accordingly the maintenance order is found to be proper as petitioner being a school teacher drawing a good salary is able to provide such maintenance. The petition is dismissed. Return the LCR.