JUDGMENT : This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the Family Court, Thoubal in Criminal (Maintenance) Case No.22 of 2014, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month. 2. The case of the petitioner is that marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 20.02.2013 and after ten days of their marriage, the respondent and his parents started insulting the petitioner. On 27.06.2013, to the surprise of the petitioner, the respondent and his parents started scolding her and blamed her for having illicit relationship with another person and told her to leave the matrimonial home at once. Further case of the petitioner is that after hearing false stories of the petitioner being caught with another male person on the previous night as narrated by the respondent and his parents, the neighbours decided to punish her and the parents were called for. Thereafter the respondent and his parents threatened to kill the petitioner if a sum of Rs.1.50 lakhs was not paid at once by the father of the petitioner. Accordingly, the parents of the petitioner handed over Rs.1.50 lakhs to the respondent and his parents. After receiving the money, the respondent and his parents forced the petitioner and her parents to put their signatures in the paper, which was already drafted without allowing them to read the contents thereof. Thereafter, the respondent and his parents lodged a false report to Thoubal Police Station against the petitioner and based on the complaint, the petitioner was arrested from the residence of the respondent on 27.06.2013. It is averred that after release on bail on 29.06.2013, the petitioner remained at her parental home without any support and help from the respondent and she requires Rs.5,000/-per month for her survival and welfare. According to the petitioner, the respondent was working as rifleman in 2nd IRB, now posted at Khuman Lampak, Imphal and drawing monthly salary of Rs.18,000/-. 3. Admitting that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 20.02.2013 under Hindu customary, the respondent filed written statement stating that they lived as husband and wife for some months. It is stated that the petitioner was having illicit relation several times stealthily with one Laishram Surjit Singh while the respondent was at his place of posting. Admitting that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 20.02.2013 under Hindu customary, the respondent filed written statement stating that they lived as husband and wife for some months. It is stated that the petitioner was having illicit relation several times stealthily with one Laishram Surjit Singh while the respondent was at his place of posting. The petitioner and her paramour were caught at night time about half a kilometer from their matrimonial home near Athokpam Arongthong by Meria Paibies, but the said paramour escaped. The respondent was at his place of posting on the said day when the incident occurred. 4. It is further stated that as narrated to the respondent by his parents, the parents of the petitioner proposed to pay some money as compensation for the loss of reputation of the respondent and to bring a solution, which was rejected by his parents. In the panchayat convened, a decision was taken for separation of the petitioner and the respondent from their marital relationship and the father of the petitioner voluntarily gave Rs.1.50 lakhs to the Chairperson of the panchayat as compensation. As the petitioner was having illicit relationship, she is not entitled to get the relief sought for by her. 5. Before the Family Court, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and one Meihoubam (O) Kunti Devi and L. Phyllajao Singh were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3. On the side of the respondent, the respondent examined himself as D.W.1 and one O. Bishoya Devi was examined as D.W.2. 6. Upon consideration of the oral evidence and the materials produced before it, the Family Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. Assailing the order of the Family Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was forcibly turned out by the respondent and his parents from the matrimonial home and she did not leave the matrimonial home voluntarily. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. Assailing the order of the Family Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was forcibly turned out by the respondent and his parents from the matrimonial home and she did not leave the matrimonial home voluntarily. He would submit that the Family Court failed to apply the judicial mind in passing the impugned order and that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice specially enacted to protect women and children and the said provision falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. 9. The learned counsel further submitted that the Family Court failed to see that the cause of action for filing the maintenance case arose on the same day of her being driven out from the matrimonial home. The learned counsel then submitted that the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily, illegally and erroneously and without considering the material evidence and the miserable condition of the petitioner who is not only incapable of maintain herself, but also still remains suffering from the mental trauma due to the torture and ill-treatment by the respondent and his parents. 10. Per contra, reiterating the findings of the Family Court, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no infirmity in the order impugned and the same is well considered and therefore, no interference is warranted. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was having illicit intimacy with one Laishram Surjit Singh and due to ill luck, the petitioner and her paramour were caught at night time, for which the petitioner was arrested by the police. Since the petitioner was having illicit relationship, she is not entitled to get any relief claimed by her in the petition and that the Family Court was right in dismissing the petition. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 12. It is an admitted fact that marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 20.02.2013 and they lived together as husband and wife till 27.06.2013 under one roof. There is no quarrel that till date, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent subsists. 12. It is an admitted fact that marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 20.02.2013 and they lived together as husband and wife till 27.06.2013 under one roof. There is no quarrel that till date, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent subsists. Nothing has been produced by both parties to show that they have approached the Court for dissolution of marriage. In the absence of any proof, it is to be presumed that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent exists as of today. 13. The petitioner filed maintenance case alleging that on 27.06.2013, the respondent and his parents started scolding her by blaming that she had illicit relationship with Surjit Singh and for that she should leave her matrimonial home immediately and also started beating her. According to the petitioner, the respondent and his parents threatened the father of the petitioner to immediately give them a sum of Rs.1.50 lakhs and if not, they would kill the petitioner. The father of the petitioner gave Rs.1.50 lakhs to the respondent and his parents and requested them for setting free the petitioner. After receipt of the money, the respondent and his parents gave a false complaint before Thoubal Police Station against the petitioner. Based on the complaint, Thoubal police arrested the petitioner from the residence of the respondent on 27.06.2013 and the petitioner was later on released on bail on 29.06.2013 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoubal. The father of the petitioner filed a complaint case being Criminal (C) Case No.43 of 2013 against the respondent and his parents before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thoubal and the same is still pending. After release, the petitioner remained at her parental home without any support and help from the respondent. 14. According to the respondent, he did not reside at his residence on the date of incident and he did not take any amount from the parents of the petitioner. In his written statement, the respondent stated that the petitioner was arrested by the police personnel of Thoubal Police Station from discussing area about her offence in front of Meira Paibee, Members of Clubs, Pradhan and registered case against the petitioner and Surjit under FIR No.121(6) 2013 TBL PS u/s.452/493/498/34 IPC. After interrogation them, the Investigating Officer recovered a Memory Chip of Mobile Phone containing their obscene pictures/sexual intercourse and voice recordings. After interrogation them, the Investigating Officer recovered a Memory Chip of Mobile Phone containing their obscene pictures/sexual intercourse and voice recordings. Thus, the respondent is really a prostitute woman in the society. 15. Based on the pleadings, the Family Court framed six issues. Except issue no.2, all other issues were answered against the petitioner and thus, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. The main ground for dismissing petition by the Family Court is illicit relationship of the petitioner with Surjit Singh. The fourth issue framed by the Family Court is "Whether the petitioner was having illicit relationship with one Surjit Singh or Not?”. While answering issue no.4, the Family Court held as under: "31. The case of the respondent in para no.4 of his pleading is that the petitioner was having illicit relationship with one Surjit Singh and whereas in his cross-examination, P.W.3 has admitted as true that the petitioner was expelled from the matrimonial home by her husband and other relatives on the ground of illicit relationship with one Laishram Surjit Singh. The averment of the petitioner that after about 10 days of marriage she was insulted and rebuked for not bringing costly dowry for being from a low profile family, also that the respondent and his parents always tried to turn her out by making false and unreasonable charges of having illicit relationship cannot be believed for no reasonable and rational person would make such remarks only after almost 10 days of love marriage. The statements of this witness could be relied upon, though he seems to know the date of marriage and the date in which the petitioner and the respondent lived together." 16. From the above findings of the Family Court, it is clear that the Family Court has not given a specific finding to the effect that the petitioner is adulterous person and she is living in adultery. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the phrase "living in adultery" means, continuous adulterous conduct. One or more instances of lapses in the character of the wife cannot be called living in adultery. The respondent has also quoted only one instance by stating that the petitioner was caught red-handed with her paramour and based on the complaint lodged by the respondent, she was arrested. One or more instances of lapses in the character of the wife cannot be called living in adultery. The respondent has also quoted only one instance by stating that the petitioner was caught red-handed with her paramour and based on the complaint lodged by the respondent, she was arrested. As stated supra, to bring home the point that the petitioner living in adultery, one or two stray incidents is not enough, but it has to be a continuous adulterous conduct. 17. In this regard, it would be useful to refer to the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Aleti Jagadishwari v. Aleti Bikshapathy, reported in 1998 CrLJ 2503 and also the decision of Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Chanda Preetam Wadate v. Preetam anpatrao Wadate another, reported in 2002 CrLJ 1397 . 18. In Aleti Jagadishwari, supra, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held as under: “7. …… Further, even if the evidences of RWs1 to 4 and 7 is admitted to be correct for arguments sake, it is a stray act of adultery on the part of the wife and such a single act of adultery does not necessarily amount to living in adultery within the meaning of Clause (4) of Section 125, Cr. P. C. and it would not be justified in refusing maintenance to the wife because the words living in adultery referred to a course of conduct and mean something more than a single lapse from Virtue. I am fortified in my opinion by the Division Bench Judgment of Karnataka High Court in M. P. Subramaniyam v. T. T. Ponnakshiammal, AIR 1958 Mys 41 (1958 Cri LJ 397), wherein it is observed that "after careful consideration of the law on the point, we are of the opinion that it is not a stray act or two of adultery that disentitles a wife from claiming maintenance from her husband; but it is a course of continuous conduct on her part by which it can be called that she is living an adulterous life that takes away her right to claim the said maintenance. It is significant to note that the wording in Section 488 (4) of the Cr. P. C. is not if she commits adultery but if she is living in adultery. To our mind there is a certain amount of emphasis on the term living. It is significant to note that the wording in Section 488 (4) of the Cr. P. C. is not if she commits adultery but if she is living in adultery. To our mind there is a certain amount of emphasis on the term living. A mere lapse, whether it is one or two, and a return back to normal life cannot be said to be living in adultery. If the lapse is continued and followed up by a further adulterous life, the woman can be said to be living in adultery. In Baishnab Charan Jena v. Ritarani Jena, 1993 Cri LJ 238, Orissa High Court, also held that :“merely proving one or more instances of lapses in character of wife is not sufficient to absolve her husband from liability to pay maintenance to her”. Therefore, the respondent-husband failed to establish that the first petitioner is not entitled to claim maintenance on the plea that she is living in adultery.” 19. In Chanda Preeta Wadate, supra, the Bombay High Court held thus: “16. The applicant has in this application raised a question of law that the courts below have misunderstood the Scope and effect of the expression, "living in adultery" in sub-section (4) of section 125 Cri.P.C. It is urged that the said expression speaks of a continuous course of conduct, but does not include stray instance of adultery or one or two lapses from virtue. In support of his argument, learned Advocate for applicant has placed reliance on a number of rulings. I shall, therefore, now refer to the rulings upon which learned Advocate for applicant has placed reliance in this respect. 17. In (Udaivir Singh v. Smt. Vinod Kumari) 1985 Cri.L.J. 1923, wife was living separately from husband and chastity of wife was doubted by husband. The High Court held that the wife was justified in living separately from husband and claiming maintenance. 18. In (Chhagan Lal Devman v. State of Maharashtra and others) 1990 (I) D.M.C 533, this Court has held that the expressing "living in adultery" as used in section 125 Cri.P.C. is to mean a continuous course of adulterous life as distinguished from one or two lapses from virtue and the burden to prove allegations of adultery against the wife lies on the husband. 19. 19. In (Khem Chand v. State and another) 1990 (1) D.M.C. 38 , it has been held that the cardinal principle is that in matrimonial or maintenance cases solitary evidence of a spouse attributing unchastity or adultery to the other party, should not be relied upon because such spouse is extremely interested in the case. 20. In (Ravindra Singh v. Kapsi Bai) 1991 (II) D. M.C. 422, it has been laid down that it is for the husband to prove that the wife is continuously committing violation of the marriage bed indulging in adulterous life, i.e. living in quasi permanent union with another. It has been further observed that to establish this, more than one instance of adultery has to be brought home to the knowledge of the wife, thereby constituting the term "living In adultery" within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. In this case, it was found that considering the evidence in totality, barring the two instances of which husband had condoned one and except the second one which then took place or isolated act of adultery, there was no other evidence to infer that wife was living in adultery. 21. In (Baishnab Charan Jena v. Ritarani Jena), 1993 Cri.L.J. 238, it has been laid down that merely proving one or more instances of lapses in character of wife is not sufficient to absolve her husband from liability to pay maintenance to her and even assuming that the instances alleged by the husband are held to have been established, still he will not be entitled to succeed to deny his liability for payment of maintenance. It was further pointed out that the very allegation by the husband to castigate the wife as a person living in adultery entitles her to live separately from her husband and claim maintenance from him. 22. In (Chandrakant Gangaram Gawade v. Sulochana Chandrakant Gawade and others), 1996 (2) Mh.L.J. 341 , this Court, after taking into consideration a number of rulings on the subject held that it is for the husband to prove that wife is living in adultery and a mere stray or single lapse on the part of the wife is not sufficient to bring her conduct within the meaning of the expression "living in adultery" used in section 125(4) Cri.P.C. and that it should be a continuous course of adulterous conduct. It is further pointed out that the husband cannot get over his liability to pay maintenance merely proving one or more instances of lapses on the part of the wife and he will have to produce additional evidence to establish continuous course of adulterous behavior to wife. 23. In (Narnath Thazhakuniyil Sandha v. Kottayat Thazhakuniyil Narayanan), 1999 Cri. L.J. 1663 the wife was actually found indulging in sexual intercourse with another person on one occasion and it was held that the words "living in adultery" under section 125(4) Cri.P.C. contemplate continuous course of conduct on the part of wife with paramour and it would be improper to refuse maintenance to wife on the evidence adduced by husband showing only a single act of unchastity or few lapses from virtue on the part of wife. In this judgment also, a number of judgments taking the same view on the subject, have been referred by the Kerala High Court. 24. Thus, the expression "living in adultery" in section 125(4) Cri.P.C. has to be a continuous course of adulterous conduct and stray instances of departure from virtue would not be sufficient to deny maintenance to wife. The fact that wife is living in adultery has to be established by the husband. In quasi-criminal proceedings, the standard of proof would be pre-ponderance of evidence. 25. Now, coming to the case under consideration, the argument of the learned Advocate for the applicant is that the courts below have misunderstood the scope and ambit of expression "living in adultery" which has to be a continuous course of conduct and on account of the said misunderstanding, the courts have come to the conclusion that the husband has been able to establish that the applicant is living in adultery, but from the evidence on record, the husband has failed to prove that the wife is living in adultery. 26. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 has urged that there was no challenge to the evidence of husband on the question of adultery and that the adultery had been duly proved. 27. Learned A.P.P. urged before me that the finding on record does not stand the test of "living in adultery" required to be established under section 125(4) Cri.P.C. 28. In order to establish that the applicant was living in adultery, the respondent No. 1 examined himself and his father. 27. Learned A.P.P. urged before me that the finding on record does not stand the test of "living in adultery" required to be established under section 125(4) Cri.P.C. 28. In order to establish that the applicant was living in adultery, the respondent No. 1 examined himself and his father. According to the respondent No. 1, the behaviour of the applicant along with his younger brother Madhu was somewhat suspicious and objectionable and that he suspected the character of the applicant and that there might be illicit relations between his brother and the applicant. According to the respondent No. 1, when said Madhu was at Pandharkawada, the applicant used to send him letters, but no such letters have been produced. Accordingly to him, on 2-3-1989, he returned early from the field and found the applicant and his younger brother in one bed in naked condition. He stated that he shall be examining his younger brother Madhu as a witness, but he was not examined. He further stated that after the incident of 2-3-1989 his younger brother was sent at Pandharkawda for education, but the evidence on record is that he was at Pandharkawda much prior to this date. In fact, he himself admitted that at the time of their marriage, his younger brother took education at Pandharkawda. According to the respondent, he had told the incident to his father, but there was no mention of this fact in the pleading. Father of respondent who was examined as P.W. 2 went to the extent of saying that the respondent No. 1 had told him that Madhu and his wife were in naked condition and were committing sexual intercourse with each other. Respondent No. 1 did not say in his deposition that he had seen Madhu having sexual intercourse with his wife/applicant. According to P.W. 2, he had asked the applicant about the intercourse with Madhu, but the applicant kept mum and assured that she will not commit such act again. This evidence can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be sufficient to fall within the ambit of expression "living in adultery" as used in section 125(4) Cri.P.C. so as to deny maintenance to the applicant on that ground. Therefore, the findings of the two courts below to the effect that the applicant was living in adultery, cannot be sustained.” 20. Therefore, the findings of the two courts below to the effect that the applicant was living in adultery, cannot be sustained.” 20. In cases where adultery is alleged by the husband on his wife, the husband has to prove his case and the Court should be satisfied. Thus, the position is clear that it is for the husband to prove that the wife is continuously committing violation of the marriage bed indulging in adulterous life, i.e. living in quasi permanent union with another. In the present case, no Court of law concluded and gave verdict to the effect that the petitioner is in adulterous conduct. Only based on the complaint given by the respondent and his parents, the petitioner was arrested on 27.06.2013 and later she was released on bail 29.06.2013. 21. The contention of the respondent is that since the petitioner is living in adultery, no maintenance can be granted to her in view of the amendment in sub-section (4) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Further contention of the respondent is that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for maintenance if she is living in adultery. Thus, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that intention of sub-section (4) is very much clear that no wife, who is living in adultery shall be entitled to any allowance including maintenance. Arguing so, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, who is living in adultery is not entitled to any allowance under sub-section (4) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Nothing has been produced by the respondent to show that the petitioner is living adultery. Mere stray or single lapse on the part of the wife is not sufficient to bring her conduct within the meaning of the expression "living in adultery" as used in Section 125(4) Cri.P.C. and that it should be a continuous course of adulterous conduct. 22. Although the husband did not dispute his relationship with the petitioner, yet he contested the petition on the allegation that his wife is living in adultery and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance as per Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. 23. The Family Court accepted the said contention of the husband and dismissed the petition filed by the wife. 22. Although the husband did not dispute his relationship with the petitioner, yet he contested the petition on the allegation that his wife is living in adultery and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance as per Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. 23. The Family Court accepted the said contention of the husband and dismissed the petition filed by the wife. In the absence of concrete proof and/or decision of the Court of law holding that the petitioner is living in adultery, it cannot be said that the allegation of adultery is proved. As stated supra, one or two stray incidents cannot bring home that the petitioner is living in adultery. Moreover, nothing has been produced by the respondent to show that she suffered conviction in the case where the petitioner was arrested by the police for the alleged offence under Section 457, 493, 498 IPC qua FIR No.121(6) 2013 on the file of the Thoubal Police Station. As such the allegation that the petitioner is living in adultery is not supported by any concrete material. Further, by taking a plea of the petitioner living in adultery, the respondent cannot escape from paying the monthly maintenance to her. Maintenance cannot be denied merely on the basis of the bald allegation that the wife is living in adultery. 24. In my considered opinion, maintenance cannot be denied to the petitioner merely on the ground that the respondent has made an allegation that the petitioner is living in adultery. Denial of maintenance just on the basis of such an allegation would not be justified until and unless the allegation is substantiated by any cogent evidence by the respondent. 25. The contention of the respondent that intention of inserting certain words in sub-section (4) clearly denies the wife to claim maintenance merely on the allegation of the husband that she is living in adultery, cannot be accepted. Such an interpretation would, in fact, defeat the very purpose and object of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. As stated supra, the maintenance cannot be denied to the wife on the basis of mere allegation levelled by the husband against the wife that she is living in adultery. If such contention is accepted, then no wife would be able to receive the maintenance and the very purpose and object of the Legislation in enacting Section 125 Cr.P.C. to prove the relief to the destitute wife would be defeated. If such contention is accepted, then no wife would be able to receive the maintenance and the very purpose and object of the Legislation in enacting Section 125 Cr.P.C. to prove the relief to the destitute wife would be defeated. Thus, I find no force in the contention of the respondent. 26. As per the social concept of Hindu society the Joint Hindu family system looms large, the law of maintenance has a special significance in the Hindu Law. All members of a joint family, whatever be their social status and whatever be their age limit, are entitled to maintenance. Hindu law also recognizes that a Hindu has also a personal obligation to maintain certain near relations, such as wife, children and aged parents. In Hindu Law, the term "maintenance" has been used in a wide sense. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, define maintenance as "provision for food, clothing, residence, education, and medical attendance and treatment". 27. Maintenance as a right of wife. In most system of law, the wife's special position in her husband's household is recognized. The obligation of the husband to maintain his wife does not arise out of any contract, express or implied, but out of the status of the jural relationship of the husband and wife created by the performance of the marriage. The obligation of the husband to maintain his wife begins with the marriage. The following are the grounds on which the maintenance can be refused: (i) That a wife living in adultery, or (ii) That without any sufficient cause or reason, she refused to live with the husband, or (iii) That she and her husband are living apart by mutual consent. 28. In the case on hand, the main plea for refusing to give maintenance by the respondent is, his wife i.e., the petitioner, is living in adultery. But this Court found that the petitioner’s continuous adulterous conduct has not been proved by the respondent and one or two incidents would not establish that the petitioner is living in adultery, more so, when such stray incident has also not been proved till date. It is not the case of the respondent that the marriage between them was broken. But this Court found that the petitioner’s continuous adulterous conduct has not been proved by the respondent and one or two incidents would not establish that the petitioner is living in adultery, more so, when such stray incident has also not been proved till date. It is not the case of the respondent that the marriage between them was broken. When the relationship of the petitioner and the respondent as husband and wife exists till date, it is the bounden duty of the respondent to maintain his wife, who is now living with her parents. Further, nothing has been produced by the respondent to show that the petitioner got sufficient means for her livelihood. 29. As far as means of the respondent to pay the maintenance is concerned, the Family Court held that the respondent as D.W.1 admitted that the petitioner has no source of income and that the pleadings and evidences are constant. When such being the finding of the Family Court, this Court is of the view that the respondent has got sufficient means to pay the maintenance amount to the petitioner. 30. Now the point is how much the petitioner is entitled to get towards maintenance. The petitioner claimed Rs.5,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance allowance. The petitioner has filed petition in the year 2014. In her petition itself, the petitioner stated that at the time of filing petition, the respondent was earning Rs.18,000/- per month by working as rifleman in 2nd IRB. Claiming Rs.5,000/- towards maintenance for the petitioner appears to be on the higher side. Therefore, taking into consideration the avocation, monthly income of the respondent and considering the fact the family members are living with the respondent, this Court feels that it would be appropriate to direct the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner. Considering the conduct of the parties and also in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent to pay the aforesaid monthly maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- from the date of petition before the Court below. 31. In the result, (a) the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the Family Court, Thoubal dated 16.02.2018 in Criminal (Maintenance) Case No.22 of 2014 is set aside. 31. In the result, (a) the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the Family Court, Thoubal dated 16.02.2018 in Criminal (Maintenance) Case No.22 of 2014 is set aside. (b) the respondent is directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) to the petitioner from the date of filing the petition in Criminal (Maintenance) Case No.22 of 2014. (c) the arrears of amount from the date of filing of this petition till the month of July, 2019 should be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this order. (d) thereafter on every month, on or before 10th day, the respondent should pay the maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) to the petitioner.