JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of CrPC read with Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act has been filed against the order dated 30/1/2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Vidisha in MJC No. 98/2016 by which the applicant has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent No. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. The applicant has filed the complete documents on record. 3. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that the applicant is working as a qualified doctor in Primary Health Centre. The applicant and the respondent were married on 15/12/2014 as per Hindu Rights and Rituals. At the time when the application under Section 125 of CrPC was filed, the respondent was carrying the pregnancy of 8 months and it was alleged that because of the harassment by her in-laws, she had already suffered a miscarriage. It was further stated that under the hope and belief that the respondent would lead a happy married life as the applicant is a qualified doctor, accordingly, a four-wheeler, 25 tolas of gold ornaments, five lakh in cash as well as other house-hold articles were given at the time of the marriage. After the marriage, her in-laws started alleging that the marriage has not been performed as per the status of the applicant and, therefore, the respondent should bring an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from her father. The applicant and her in-laws used to treat the respondent like a servant and she was forced to do all types of works and whenever it was objected by the respondent, then the applicant used to abuse her and beat her and she was even forced to clean waste (excreta) of the applicant and his family members. It is further alleged that the applicant never kept the respondent with him and he had always forced her to live with her in-laws separately at Hathpipaliya whereas the applicant is posted in village Nemawar. The applicant always gave a threat that he would marry a lady doctor and although the respondent is carrying a pregnancy of 8 months, she was turned out of her matrimonial house as a result of which, she is living with her parents under compulsion. The applicant always gave a threat that he would marry a lady doctor and although the respondent is carrying a pregnancy of 8 months, she was turned out of her matrimonial house as a result of which, she is living with her parents under compulsion. It was alleged that although the respondent is a qualified person and she is entitled to enjoy the status of the wife of a doctor but still she was never provided adequate food and she was forced to work as a servant. After the birth of the child, the applicant immediately filed a suit for divorce. Thus, a prayer was made that the respondent be given an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month for herself and an amount of Rs.25,000/- for the child and the delivery expenses. Thereafter, the application was amended and it was pleaded that on 16/10/2016, the respondent has given birth to a baby girl and neither the applicant has taken care of the delivery expenses nor has borne the expenses required for upbringing of the child. 4. The applicant filed his reply under Section 125 of CrPC and admitted that his parents are residing at Hathpipaliya and pleaded that he is residing in the said house. In the Additional statement, it was alleged by him that both of his brothers are residing separately from the parents and, therefore, the applicant is residing along with the parents and further admitted that the respondent is only required to prepare meals for his old parents. Remaining house-hold works are done by the maid servant. It was also pleaded that whenever the respondent is required to go anywhere, then she is using the car, as driver has been employed. It was further pleaded that the respondent never respected his old parents and she always demanded branded articles and without any reason, she goes to her parents' home. He further stated that when for the first time the respondent was carrying the pregnancy of six months, she was got treated from the renowned doctors and as the respondent was under the habit of walking in the garden, therefore, because of her negligence, she had suffered the miscarriage. It was further pleaded that on 12/10/2015, the applicant went to take the respondent back as it was already agreed that the respondent would stay in village Hathpipaliya but she was not sent by her parents. It was further pleaded that on 12/10/2015, the applicant went to take the respondent back as it was already agreed that the respondent would stay in village Hathpipaliya but she was not sent by her parents. Thereafter, also on several auspicious occasions, the respondent did not come to Hathpipaliya. For the second time, when she was carrying the pregnancy of three months, then the respondent went to Mahu. Considering the physical condition of the respondent, she should not have gone to Mahu. It was further stated that the respondent has never taken care of his old parents and a false offence under Section 498-A read with 406 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been instituted. The gross salary of the applicant is Rs.40,000/- per month and after deductions, his take home salary is only Rs.12,000/- per month which is not even sufficient to look after himself and his parents whereas the respondent is earning Rs.15,000/- per month by running coaching classes and doing stitching works. It was further submitted that the respondent is not willing to stay in her matrimonial house as she is not interested in taking care of her old parents-in-laws and she, all the time, is pressurizing the applicant to reside separately from her parents-in-laws and only in that situation, she would compromise the matter. However, the applicant cannot leave his parents. 5. The parties led their evidence and after considering the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court by the order under challenge has allowed the application filed under Section 125 of CrPC and has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month by way of maintenance to respondent No. 1 and Rs.1,000/- by way of maintenance to respondent No. 2. 6. Since the present revision has been filed by the applicant, therefore, this Court, at this time, is not considering the adequacy of the maintenance amount awarded to the respondents and in case if any revision is filed for enhancement of the maintenance amount, then this order would not come in the way of the said revision. 7. 6. Since the present revision has been filed by the applicant, therefore, this Court, at this time, is not considering the adequacy of the maintenance amount awarded to the respondents and in case if any revision is filed for enhancement of the maintenance amount, then this order would not come in the way of the said revision. 7. The applicant has specifically stated in his return that the respondent is not residing along with her parents-in-law and she is not taking care of her parents-in-law and although the applicant has hired a maid servant to look after the house-hold works but even then the respondent is not ready to give meals properly to her parents-in-law. However, the applicant has accepted that he is posted in Nemawar which is around 89 kilometers for Hathpipaliya whereas his parents are residing in Hathpipaliya. During arguments, it was submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant could have married a doctor girl but as he wanted that her wife should look after his parents, therefore, he married respondent No. 1. Although in the reply, the applicant has stated that he is residing along with his parents but in cross-examination, he has specifically admitted that an official bungalow has been allotted to him in village Nemawar and he is residing there. An attempt was made by the counsel for the applicant by saying that since the distance of Nemawar from Hathpipaliya is only 89 kilometers, therefore, on every weekend, the applicant comes to Hathpipaliya. However, one thing is clear that the allegation made by the respondent that the applicant is not interested in keeping her with him and is always insisting her to stay along with her parents-in-law is correct. Even during arguments, it was accepted by the counsel for the applicant that being the well qualified doctor having studied for seven years in Kazakshthan, he could have married to a doctor but as he was interested that his wife should look after his parents, therefore, he has married the respondent No. 1. Thus, it is clear that after the marriage, the applicant had always insisted that respondent No. 1 should stay along with her parents-in-law in Hathpipaliya whereas the applicant is posted in Nemawar which is at the distance of 89 kms. Thus, it is clear that after the marriage, the applicant had always insisted that respondent No. 1 should stay along with her parents-in-law in Hathpipaliya whereas the applicant is posted in Nemawar which is at the distance of 89 kms. The applicant has also accepted that they are three brothers but has stated that his two brothers have separated and they are not taking care of parents and being the obedient boy, he is interested in the welfare of his old parents and, therefore, if he has asked his wife to stay along with his parents so that a proper care can be taken, then it cannot be said that the action of the applicant amounts to cruelty. It is further submitted that so far as the allegation of respondent No. 1 that because of the cruelty by the applicant and his family members, she had suffered a miscarriage is concerned, it is submitted that in fact it was respondent No. 1 who used to go to the gardens and because of that she had suffered miscarriage and, therefore, the allegation made by respondent No. 1 is false. Furthermore, it is submitted that looking to the income of the applicant, the maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No. 2 is on a higher side and because of the maintenance amount awarded to the respondents, the possibility of reconciliation has become bleak and, therefore, the maintenance amount should be reduced. 8. Considered the submission made by the counsel for the applicant. 9. The first contention of the applicant is that he has married the respondent No. 1 to look after his old and ill parents, then it cannot be said that he has committed cruelty. Even ignoring the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment as made by respondent No. 1, if the contention made by the counsel for the applicant is considered in the light of the evidence which has been led by the parties, then it is clear that the act of the applicant clearly amounts to cruelty. Undisputedly, the parents of the applicant are residing in village Hathpipaliya whereas the applicant is posted at Nemawar which is 89 kms. away from Hathpipaliya. Undisputedly, the parents of the applicant are residing in village Hathpipaliya whereas the applicant is posted at Nemawar which is 89 kms. away from Hathpipaliya. The applicant, in his reply, has admitted that respondent No. 1 never took care of her parents-in-law by providing meals properly and he had also taken a stand that for doing the remaining house-hold works, he had hired a maid servant in Hathpipaliya. The applicant in his reply has stated that he is residing along with her parents-in-law in Hathpipaliya but in cross-examination, he has admitted that an official bungalow has been allotted to him in village Nemawar and he is residing there all alone. An attempt was made by the counsel for the applicant to cover up the things by saying that the applicant, on every weekend, used to go to Hathpipaliya. It was further contended by the counsel for the applicant that being a well qualified doctor, the applicant could have married to a doctor girl, but since he was interested in the welfare of his old and illing parents, therefore, he has married to respondent No.1. 10. Now the only question for consideration is that whether the marriage was performed with sole intention that the wife instead of staying with her husband, must stay with her parents-in-law so that she may take care of her parents-in-law and if that is so, then whether the respondent was given the status of a wife or was given the status of a care taker ? 11. Looking after the parents-in-law is one of the duty of the wife. The wife after her marriage cannot say that she will look after her husband only and would not look after her in-laws. After the marriage, the girl becomes the family member of her in-laws. 11. Looking after the parents-in-law is one of the duty of the wife. The wife after her marriage cannot say that she will look after her husband only and would not look after her in-laws. After the marriage, the girl becomes the family member of her in-laws. Unfortunately, we use word “in-laws” or “matrimonial home” of a girl but in the considered opinion of this Court, for all practical purposes, after the marriage, the girl leaves her parents home and goes to her new home where she has to spend her entire life, therefore, just for the sake of making difference between the house of the father of the girl and house of the husband of the girl, the house of the girl, after her marriage, is called as matrimonial house or the house of her in-laws and the house of her father is always called as parents' home or parental home. This distinction is just for differentiating between the two houses of a girl while deciding the disputes but as per Hindu Culture, after the marriage, the girl renounces her father's home and goes to her husband's home and the home of the husband is always treated as the actual home of the girl, therefore, under these circumstances, if the girl shows that she will not look after her parents-in-law, then it may not be good on her part to say so but at the same time, after the marriage, a girl is entitled to lead her married life in the company of her husband. 12. In saptapadi, several promises are made by the husband and wife to each other which are as under:- “The following are the vows taken by the groom: 1. O' bride you have walked one step with me. Now we have become friends; hence you will become provider of food. Help me to fulfill my vowed religious observances (vrats). May we have many sons and may they have a long life. 2. O bride, you have walked two steps with me; hence may you become one who will give me strength. 3. O bride, since you have walked three steps with me, may you become one who will increase my wealth. 4. Since you have walked four steps with me may you increase my happiness. 5. Since you have walked five steps with me, may you give birth to children. 6. 3. O bride, since you have walked three steps with me, may you become one who will increase my wealth. 4. Since you have walked four steps with me may you increase my happiness. 5. Since you have walked five steps with me, may you give birth to children. 6. Since you have walked six steps with me, may you give me pleasure in all seasons. 7. You have walked seven steps with me, hence our friendship (relationship) has become strong. The following are the vows taken by the bride: 1. O Lord! I have had the good fortune of acquiring you due to the various types of merits acquired by me in various births. 2. I will look after your entire family, from the infant to the aged and will be happy with whatever I get from my sustenance. 3. I will always abide by your directives and will regularly cook delicious food, vegetables, etc. 4. I will embellish myself with clean attire and will indulge in sexual play with you through acts with the mind, speech and body. 5. I will face sorrow bravely and remain pleased in happiness will share both your happiness and sorrow and will never indulge in adultery. 6. I will happily perform all your household chores. I will also serve my in-laws and will respect other relatives. I will stay wherever you stay. I will never deceive my beloved (master) and will never get deceived by him. 7. O master! I will assist you in the rituals of sacrificial fires (homa-yajnya), etc. and will obey you with regard to Righteousness (Dharma), wealth (artha) and desire (karma). Here, in the presence of the deity of fire (Agnidev), the Brahmans, my parents and relatives you have become my master and I have offered my body unto you.” 13. Thus, where the bride makes certain promises to the groom and the groom makes certain promises to the bride, then the groom can not say that the primary intention behind the marriage was to take care of the old parents of the groom only and he cannot say that he would not fulfill the remaining promises made by him during the marriage ceremony. When the contention of the counsel for the applicant that the applicant could have married to a doctor girl but he has married to respondent No. 1 so that she can look after her parents-in-law clearly shows that inspite of making promises at the time of the Saptapadi, something else was going in the mind of the groom and he had intentions not to fulfill the promises made by him during the marriage ceremony. It is clear from his subsequent conduct as well as his reply in which he has specifically stated that his parents are residing in Hathpipaliya whereas he is posted in village Nemawar and he has accepted in his cross-examination that although an official bungalow has been allotted to him in village Nemawar but he resides there all alone, it appears that the sole intention of the applicant was to bring a care taker for his parents. The basic allegation of the applicant against respondent No. 1 is that although he had employed a maid servant but respondent No. 1 had never taken care of her parents-in-law in Hathpipaliya. The allegation of respondent No. 1 is that apart from the harassment because of demand of dowry, the applicant had never kept her with him and he had forced her to live along with her parents-in-law in Hathpipaliya. A bride is to be given the status of a wife who can enjoy her marriage life in the company of her husband. Without any reasonable reason and with sole intention that he has married the girl so that she can take care of her parents-in-law, who are residing separately from the husband would certainly be against the concept of married life/family. If the applicant was of the view that the brothers have separated and they are not looking after his parents, then the applicant could have brought his parents with him as the applicant is residing at a distance of 89 kms. only from Hathpipaliya. Unfortunately, the applicant did not try to bring his parents to Nemawar where the applicant is posted. only from Hathpipaliya. Unfortunately, the applicant did not try to bring his parents to Nemawar where the applicant is posted. Had it been that inspite of the fact that the parents of the applicant are residing with him in village Nemawar but the respondent No. 1 is not taking care of her old parents-in-law, then the matter would have been different but in the present case, the undisputed facts are that the parents of the applicant are residing in Hathpipaliya whereas the applicant is posted in Nemawar as a doctor and being a doctor, he is required to continuously stay in village Nemawar so that he can treat the patients in case of an emergency and the applicant has also admitted that only during weekends, he goes to Hathpipaliya. If respondent No. 1 is required to enjoy the company of her husband in the weekend only and if she is required to look after her parents-in-law by staying separately from her husband at different place, then the behaviour of the applicant is certainly cruel towards his wife. 14. Furthermore, the second contention of the applicant is that during the pregnancy period, respondent No. 1 used to walk in the gardens as a result of which she had suffered miscarriage. It is surprising that the applicant, who himself is a qualified doctor working in the Government Hospital having taken education from Kazakhsthan has made such a wild allegation that since the respondent used to walk in the garden during the pregnancy period, therefore, she has suffered miscarriage. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the behaviour of the applicant towards the respondents was cruel. 15. So far as the question of quantum is concerned, it is well established principle of law that the wife is entitled to enjoy the same status which she had otherwise enjoyed in her matrimonial house. 16. In the present case, undisputedly, the applicant is a qualified doctor having taken education from Kazakhsthan. He is working as a doctor in the Government Hospital. 16. In the present case, undisputedly, the applicant is a qualified doctor having taken education from Kazakhsthan. He is working as a doctor in the Government Hospital. The applicant had also stated that he could have married a doctor girl but with a sole intention that his wife would take care of his parents, he had married to respondent No.1 whereas the parents of respondent No. 1 were of the view that since the groom is a well qualified doctor, therefore, the bride would lead a happy marriage life. 17. Be that as it may. 18. The fact is that the applicant is a qualified doctor working in the Government Hospital. Looking to the social status of the applicant, the respondents are entitled to get the maintenance amount accordingly. 19. The Supreme Court in the case of Reema Salkan vs. Sumer Singh Salkan by order dated 25/9/2018 passed in CrA No. 1220/2018 has granted Rs.20,000/- per month by way of maintenance to the wife of a qualified doctor. In the present case, the trial Court has awarded Rs.15,000/- per month and in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Reema Salkan (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that considering the social status of the applicant, the amount of Rs.15,000/- per month which has been granted to respondent No. 1 cannot be said to be on a higher side. Accordingly, the prayer to reduce the maintenance amount awarded to respondent No.1 is rejected. 20. It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the amount of Rs.1,000/- awarded to respondent No. 2 is on a higher side and, therefore, it should be reduced. 21. The applicant has admitted that after the delivery of his daughter, he never went to even see his daughter. 20. It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the amount of Rs.1,000/- awarded to respondent No. 2 is on a higher side and, therefore, it should be reduced. 21. The applicant has admitted that after the delivery of his daughter, he never went to even see his daughter. Respondent No. 2 is a daughter of a well qualified doctor, therefore, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to consider that whether the maintenance amount awarded to respondent No. 2 is on a higher side or not but certainly looking to the status of the parties as well as the reputation which the respondents would have enjoyed in the society and the cost of the articles which are required for the bare survival of a person, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.1,000/- awarded to respondent No. 2 cannot be said to be on a high side. 22. Accordingly, the order dated 30/1/2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Vidisha in MJC No. 98/2016 is hereby affirmed. 23. The revision fails and is hereby dismissed.