JUDGMENT : The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 03.12.2015 passed in M.P. Case No. 08 of 2012 by which he has been directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to his wife for her maintenance. 2. Only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge the judgment in M.P. Case No. 08 of 2012 is based on the agreement dated 16.09.2014 entered into between the petitioner and his father-in-law, namely, Suchit Singh. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once an agreement has been entered into between the petitioner and his father-in-law on behalf of his daughter and both the parties have agreed to live separately with mutual consent, the maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C cannot be granted. 4. Ms. Amrita Banerjee, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has disputed the validity of the agreement dated 16.09.2014. She has contended that any such agreement cannot bind O.P. No. 2 and the agreement dated 16.09.2014 cannot be the basis to deny O.P. No. 2 maintenance by her husband. 5. The proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C was initiated on 19.01.2012, however, the petitioner, opposite party therein, did not file his show-cause reply and accordingly he was debarred from filing his defence and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance vide order dated 21.08.2014 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro. The matter came before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1010 of 2014 and by an order dated 28.07.2015 the order granting maintenance to O.P. No. 2 was set-aside and the matter was remitted back for taking evidence of the parties. In the fresh proceeding, the applicant, the wife of the petitioner, has examined three witnesses. The petitioner has also examined three witnesses. 6. The wife of the petitioner who has examined herself as P.W. 3 has stated about solemnisation of her marriage with the petitioner and demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- or a Marshall Car by the petitioner. All persuasion to pacify the petitioner and to keep O.P. No. 2 in her matrimonial home failed and finally she was ousted from her matrimonial home. She has claimed that her husband earns Rs. 12,000/- per month. She was not cross-examined by the petitioner and while so, her evidence has remained unchallenged. The witnesses examined by the petitioner has spoken about a panchnama and transaction of Rs. She has claimed that her husband earns Rs. 12,000/- per month. She was not cross-examined by the petitioner and while so, her evidence has remained unchallenged. The witnesses examined by the petitioner has spoken about a panchnama and transaction of Rs. 1,00,000/- under which both the parties agreed to reside separately. The learned Family Court Judge has recorded that Rameshwar Singh who has been examined by the petitioner as OPW-2 in his cross-examination has admitted that signature of Pramod Kumar Singh is not on the Ekrarnama. He has also admitted that he does not remember the date on which an agreement was executed and who else were present when such agreement was allegedly entered into between the petitioner and his father-in-law. The learned Judge has recorded a finding that the agreement which bears different dates is doubtful and, moreover, it was denied by the applicant. In my opinion, otherwise also such an agreement has no sanctity in law. A father cannot enter into an agreement agreeing that his daughter would stay separately from her husband after receiving Rs. 1,00,000/-. 7. The marriage between the parties is not disputed. There is a reference of C.P. Case No. 674 of 2008 which was instituted by the wife of the petitioner against him and his family members. May be the accused persons were discharged in the said case, but then, the fact remains that there have been serious allegation of misbehavior and harassment of O.P. No. 2 by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner has filed a petition seeking divorce which, however, is still pending. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that O.P. No. 2 has reasonable excuse not to live in the company of her husband. The petitioner has neglected to maintain his wife and, therefore, the learned Family Court Judge has rightly held that the petitioner is liable to maintain his wife. The judgment dated 03.12.2015 passed in M.P. Case No. 08 of 2012 is a well reasoned judgment and grant of Rs. 3,000/- per month as monthly maintenance from the date of filing of the application, in my opinion, is just and proper. 9. In the above facts, keeping in mind the object behind Section 125 Cr.P.C and the limitations of the revisional jurisdiction [refer, “Sheonandan Paswan Vs. 3,000/- per month as monthly maintenance from the date of filing of the application, in my opinion, is just and proper. 9. In the above facts, keeping in mind the object behind Section 125 Cr.P.C and the limitations of the revisional jurisdiction [refer, “Sheonandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar” reported in (1987) 1 SCC 288], I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment in M.P. Case No. 08 of 2012 and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 207 of 2016 is dismissed. 10. The petitioner shall pay the arrears of maintenance to O.P. No. 2 within next eight weeks which shall be paid by him after adjusting Rs. 50,000/- which was deposited by him in compliance of order dated 22.02.2018 in I.A. No. 290 of 2018.