JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. The challenge in this revision is made to the judgment and order dated 04.03.2021, passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1 of 2017, Smt. Priyanka Vs. Shashank Singh, by the Court of Family Court, Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). By the impugned judgment and order, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 14,000/- per month to the respondent no. 2 (“the wife”), as maintenance. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The case is based on an application, filed by the wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). According to it, she and the revisionist were married on 04.10.2011. After some time, the wife was harassed and tortured for additional demand of dowry. In the month of June, 2015, the wife was expelled from her matrimonial house; she has been staying with her parents; she has no means to maintain herself, whereas, the revisionist is a man of means, he runs school, he was into the mining business, in contract, and the monthly income of the revisionist is Rs. 5,00,000/-. 4. The revisionist filed objections to the application and denied all the allegations. According to the revisionist, soon after the marriage, the wife made the revisionist to stay away from his joint family. Revisionist tried to maintain cordial relations with his wife. They visited Thailand, Dehradun, Mussoorie and various other places. The revisionist also helped his wife and got her employed in a school run by his mother at a salary of Rs. 15,500/- per month. According to the revisionist, it is the nature of his wife to take up fights on small issues; she, on her own, had left the matrimonial house; she is in relationship with one Sunny Arora; she is post graduate and earns Rs. 15,500/-, per month, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. 5. Parties adduced evidence. On behalf of the wife, she herself and her father were examined. On behalf of the revisionist, the revisionist as DW1, DW2 Shekar Narang, DW3 Pawan Mishra & DW4 Amit Rao were examined. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, the application under Section 125 of the Code, filed by the wife, has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay the maintenance. Aggrieved by it, the revisionist has filed the instant revision. 6. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, the application under Section 125 of the Code, filed by the wife, has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay the maintenance. Aggrieved by it, the revisionist has filed the instant revision. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that, in fact, the wife has been employed since 2017; she has a car also and she was staying in a rented flat of Shivangi Verma. The revisionist has proved these facts, but the wife has denied about it. Although, it is stated that, in her cross-examination, the wife has admitted that she worked with the Inter Global Aviation, Gurgaon, Haryana for about 10 to 12 days. It is argued that, in fact, in the month of October, 2019, the salary of the wife was about Rs. 51,379/-. Therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. The income of the wife has not been considered and the finding is not based on any evidence. Therefore, it is argued that interference is warranted in this revision. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the wife would submit that in para 12 of the affidavit filed in examination-in-chief, the revisionist has admitted that he had got a job secured to the wife in the school run by his mother at a salary of Rs. 15,500/- per month, therefore, the argument that the wife is working in some Inter Global Aviation Gurgaon, Haryana does not hold good. It is also argued that even it has not been shown that after October, 2019 also, the wife was working with Inter Global Aviation, Gurgaon, Haryana. It is argued that the court below did consider the means of both the parties and arrived at a conclusion, which does not warrant any interference. 8. This is a revision. The scope is quite restricted to the extent of examining the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned judgment and order. Appreciation of evidence in these proceedings is not a routine. Appreciation is not made generally, unless, the finding recorded is perverse or material evidence is ignored or irrelevant material is considered. With these broad contours of examining the matter, the Court proceeds further. 9. The wife had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code. The only argument which has been raised is with regard to the income of the wife. With these broad contours of examining the matter, the Court proceeds further. 9. The wife had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code. The only argument which has been raised is with regard to the income of the wife. What is being argued is that, the wife is able to maintain herself; she does not require any maintenance, she has been lying in the Court throughout and the court below did not consider the material evidence with regard to the income of the wife, hence, the order requires interference. 10. Section 125 of the Code begins with “If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself……………………..” 11. A wife, who desires to get maintenance under Section 125 of the Code, has to establish that she is unable to maintain. Now, in the instant case, the question is as to whether the wife has been able to establish that she is unable to maintain herself? and the related question is as to whether the relevant material has not been considered by the court below or irrelevant material has been considered. 12. In the application under Section 125 of the Code, in paragraph 12, the wife has stated that she is not able to maintain herself and she is dependent on her parents. In para 11 of her application, the wife has stated about the means of the revisionist. 13. The averments made in para 11 and 12 have been denied by the revisionist. In para 17 of his objection, the revisionist states that, in fact, he requested his mother, who was Manager of the school, to employee his wife as a Teacher in the school at a salary of Rs. 15,500/. The appointment was made in the month of October, 2012. 14. During the course of evidence, the wife reiterated the version of her application. The father of the wife, Mr. Mahesh Kumar Verma, has also supported her statement. Although, PW2 Mukesh Kumar Verma, father of the wife, in para 12 of his affidavit filed in examination-in-chief, has stated that the revisionist is in illicit relation with some other woman; in fact, even it has not been the case of the wife. 15. The father of the wife, Mr. Mahesh Kumar Verma, has also supported her statement. Although, PW2 Mukesh Kumar Verma, father of the wife, in para 12 of his affidavit filed in examination-in-chief, has stated that the revisionist is in illicit relation with some other woman; in fact, even it has not been the case of the wife. 15. The revisionist in his affidavit filed in the examination-in-chief in para 12 has stated that he had got his wife employed in a school at a salary of Rs. 15,500/- per month, but in para 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, the revisionist in his affidavit, filed in examination-in-chief, has stated that, in fact, the wife is working with Inter Global Aviation, Gurgaon, Haryana since April, 2017, she has a bank account in HDFC Bank, in which, each month her salary has been deposited, which in the month of August, 2019 was Rs. 44,034/-. The wife is staying in a flat of Shivangi Verma as a tenant, and, she pays rent of Rs. 10,500/-, which is paid from her HDFC Bank account, each month. It is also deposed by the revisionist that, in fact, the wife had purchased a Maruti Suzuki Car in the year February, 2019, by financing from HDFC Bank, of which installment of Rs. 9,637/- were also deducted from the salary account of the wife. 16. Interestingly, the revisionist has not been cross examined on these issues. He has not been asked that the wife is not staying in a flat of Shivangi Verma; he has not been asked that the wife has no bank account, although, one suggestion is given to the revisionist and it is recorded, as if, according to the revisionist, the wife is not working with Inter Global Aviation, Gurgaon, Haryana. This is the last but 5th paragraph of the cross-examination of DW1 Shashank Chaudhary. It appears a typographical error because it has been consistent case of the revisionist that the wife is working with Inter Global Aviation, Gurgaon, Haryana since 2017. There are other witnesses also. DW2 Shekhar Narang and DW3 Pawan Mishra are two officers from HDFC Bank. They have filed the bank statement of the wife with all details. They have stated that the salary was deposited in the account of the wife. According to DW2, Shekhar Narang, on 25.10.2019 Rs.51,319/- were deposited in the account of the wife as salary. DW2 Shekhar Narang and DW3 Pawan Mishra are two officers from HDFC Bank. They have filed the bank statement of the wife with all details. They have stated that the salary was deposited in the account of the wife. According to DW2, Shekhar Narang, on 25.10.2019 Rs.51,319/- were deposited in the account of the wife as salary. He has also stated that each month an installment is also deducted from the salary account of the wife, although, in page 5, para 1, DW2 Shekhar Narang did not confirm that the bank account relates to the wife itself, but he says that it relates to the instant case. The account has been filed. This witness has not been asked that the address given on the account is not that of the wife. It is a document, which was prepared and presented in the normal course of banking business. There is an authenticity, which is attached with such documents. 17. DW3 Pawan Mishra, in fact, taken out the statement, he signed the document and presented. He has not been told that the statement does not belong to the wife. 18. DW4 Amit Rao is a person who has filed the registration certification of a vehicle, which is in the name of the wife. Nothing could be elicited from cross- examination of DW1 Shashank Chaudhary or DW2 Shekhar Narang, DW3 Pawan Mishra and DW4 Amit Rao which may discredit the statement of these witnesses. 19. It is established that the wife was working with Inter Global Aviation, Gurgaon, Haryana; she was receiving salary and she has an account in the HDFC bank, in which the salary was being deposited, which, in the month of October, 2019 was about Rs. 51,000/-, as stated by DW2 Shekhar Narang. It has also been established that from the salary account of the wife, a sum is being deducted and deposited in the account of Shivangi Verma, in whose flat, according to DW1 Chaudhary Sashank Singh, the wife is staying as a tenant. These are established facts. The wife denied it. She as a witness PW1 Priyanka, in her cross-examination stated that she worked with Inter Global Aviation, Gurgaon, Haryana for about 10-12 days. She could have filed a document as to when did she join Inter Global Aviation, Gurgaon, Haryana and when did she resign or she was removed. These are established facts. The wife denied it. She as a witness PW1 Priyanka, in her cross-examination stated that she worked with Inter Global Aviation, Gurgaon, Haryana for about 10-12 days. She could have filed a document as to when did she join Inter Global Aviation, Gurgaon, Haryana and when did she resign or she was removed. She could have belied the statements of DW1 Chaudhary Sashank Singh, DW2 Shekhar Narang, DW3 Pawan Mishra & DW4 Amit Rao, which she did not. PW1 Priyanka was asked in her cross-examination about the car, which was registered in her name. She expressed ignorance. She said that she does not know about it. Her brother and father might know about it. There is evidence that the car was financed in the name of the wife. 20. The court below added the salary, which the wife received from the year 2017 to 2019, and, on an aggregate held that the wife was getting average Rs. 35,772.41/- salary. The court below held that the income of the revisionist is about Rs. 70 to 80,000/-. The Court observed that, in order to maintain herself, commensurate with the status of the revisionist, the wife should be allowed Rs. 14,000/- more maintenance. 21. This finding is not based on evidence. It is not aggregate salary, but the salary which the wife was getting is relevant. DW2 Shekhar Narang has categorically stated that in the month of October 2019, the wife did receive Rs 51,379/-. The salary, as per the salary statement has been on ascending order, it was increasing, it might be much more than Rs. 51,379/- today, if the wife is still continuing with the same organization. But, this Court cannot speculate on that aspect. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the court below did not correctly took into consideration the salary of the wife and evidence on that aspect has not been appreciated correctly. Since the wife has been receiving Rs. 51,379/- in the month of October, 2019, keeping in view the income of the revisionist, as assessed by the court below as well as the salary of the wife, this Court is of the view that the wife is not entitled to any maintenance. Her application ought to have been dismissed. The Court below did commit an error in allowing the application of the wife. Therefore, the revision deserves to be allowed. 22. Her application ought to have been dismissed. The Court below did commit an error in allowing the application of the wife. Therefore, the revision deserves to be allowed. 22. The revision is allowed. 23. The impugned order dated 04.03.2021 is setaside. The application filed under Section 125 of the Code by the wife is dismissed.