JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral) - By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr, in case No. 2/3 of 2017, titled as Smt. Anjana v. Anil Kumar and another, dated 11.08.2017 , vide which, an application filed under Section 23 for grant of monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of the Proceedings in application under section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, stood allowed by the learned Court below whereby the present petitioner was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent/applicant from the date of filing of the application, till disposal of the main petition and also against judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kinnaur, at Rampur Bushahr, in Criminal Appeal No. 423/2017, titled as Sh. Anit Kumar v. Smt. Anjana, dated 26.12.2017 , vide which learned Appellate Court rejected the appeal filed by the present petitioner and upheld the order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law as both the learned Courts below have erred in not appreciating that respondent/applicant was not legally wedded wife of the petitioner and therefore, he was under no compulsion to maintain the lady. He has further submitted that even otherwise the amount of maintenance which has been ordered by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court, is on the higher side. No other point is urged. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no perversity either in the order passed by the learned trial Court or in the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, because findings returned by both the learned Courts below are duly borne out from the records of the case and learned trial Court has allowed the application of the applicant therein after relying upon material on record, which clearly and categorically demonstrated that the applicant was the wife of the petitioner. He further submits that the amount of maintenance, which so stands allowed by the learned trial court, cannot be said to be on the higher side, because taking into consideration the fact that present petitioner is a Class-I officer, the amount which had been ordered to be paid to the respondent/applicant by the learned trial Court is just and reasonable and in fact, less than 1/3rd of the pay of the present petitioner. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the orders passed by the learned trial Court as also the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court. 5. A perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Court as also the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court demonstrates that in order to arrive at the conclusion that the respondent/applicant was the legally wedded wife of the present petitioner, both these Courts have taken into consideration (a) the affidavit filed by the present petitioner himself claiming the applicant to be his wife; (b) an application filed by the present petitioner to Incharge, Police Station, Nirmand, wherein again he admitted that the applicant was his wife; and (c) a missing report lodged by the present petitioner before Incharge, Police Station, Nirmand, dated 5.11.2016 qua his wife, wherein the details of the wife of the present petitioner were those of the respondent/applicant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Courts below have returned the findings that the respondent/applicant was in fact the wife of the petitioner, on conjectures and surmises, as it is not in dispute that said three documents are on record. 6. The contention of the present petitioner that the affidavit was executed by him under coercion stands negated by both the learned Courts below, and rightly so, because both the learned Courts below have correctly held that prudently it cannot be accepted or pleaded that the petitioner, who was an officer of the rank of Tehsildar, could have been coerced to file such an affidavit. Therefore, in my considered view, the findings so returned by both the learned Courts below to the effect that the applicant prima facie was the wife of the petitioner, cannot be faulted with. 7. Therefore, in my considered view, the findings so returned by both the learned Courts below to the effect that the applicant prima facie was the wife of the petitioner, cannot be faulted with. 7. A perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Court demonstrates that it held that the contention of the present petitioner that the applicant was not subjected to any cruelty was devoid of any merit, for the simple reason that the very factum of the present petitioner denying marital status to a lady (respondent herein) amounted to mental cruelty. In my considered view, such findings returned by learned trial Court are correct findings, taking into consideration the fact that there is ample record suggestive of the respondent being the wife of the petitioner, the factum of the petitioner denying such relationship does amounts to mental cruelty. 8. Further, in my considered view, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that amount of maintenance which has been granted by the learned trial Court is on a higher side is also devoid of merit, for the simple reason that the petitioner being a Class-I officer, cannot say that an amount of 15,000/-, which has been ordered to be paid by him as maintenance towards upkeep of his wife, is on higher side. During the course of arguments, it has not been disputed that pay of the petitioner is approximately 50,000/- per month. 9. In view of above discussion, as I do not find any merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. Registry is directed to release the entire amount, which stands deposited by the petitioner with it, in favour of respondent/applicant, in her bank account, details of which shall be furnished by her with the Registry of this Court within a period of two weeks and the prayer to the contrary made by learned Counsel for the petitioner that said amount be not released in favour of the respondent, is hereby rejected. 10. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.