JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. In this revision application, challenge is to the judgment and order dtd. 27/12/2021, passed by the learned Judge of Family Court No.4, Nagpur, whereby the learned Judge partly allowed the petition filed under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by non-applicant no.1 (original petitioner no.1) and directed the applicant (original respondent) to pay a sum of Rs.5, 000.00 per month to non-applicant no.1 (wife) and Rs.3, 000.00 per month to non-applicant no.2 (son) towards maintenance. 2. The facts are follows : The parties in this revision would be referred to by their nomenclature in the petition filed before the Family Court. The marriage between petitioner no.1 and the respondent took place on 21/2/2017. It is stated by the petitioners that before engagement, the parents of the respondent informed that they do not want dowry. However, few days prior to the marriage, father of the respondent demanded Rs.5, 00, 000.00 towards dowry. Father of petitioner no.1 refused to pay dowry, however he helped them by depositing Rs.2, 50, 000.00 in the bank account of the respondent. It is stated that on the day of the marriage, father of the respondent demanded Rs.5, 00, 000.00 towards dowry from her father. At that time, father of petitioner no.1 threatened to lodge report to the police, if they persisted with the demand of dowry and therefore, the marriage could be performed. It is stated that after marriage, the respondent and his family members subjected petitioner no.1 to mental and physical cruelty for want of Rs.5, 00, 000.00 as dowry. They would beat her on that count. Petitioner no.1 tried her level best to convince the respondent. The respondent did not allow her to talk with the neighbours and her relatives on phone. She was not provided proper meals. Petitioner no.1 informed her parents about the mental and physical cruelty meted out to her. On 4/2/2018, the respondent and his family members quarreled with the parents of petitioner no.1. They insulted them by hurling filthy abuses towards them. They demanded Rs.5, 00, 000.00 towards dowry. On account of failure of her parents to meet the demand of dowry, petitioner no.1 was driven out of the house in February, 2018. On 20/6/2018, petitioner no.1 gave birth to petitioner no.2. The respondent and his family members, despite conveying this good news, did not bother to come and see the baby. They demanded Rs.5, 00, 000.00 towards dowry. On account of failure of her parents to meet the demand of dowry, petitioner no.1 was driven out of the house in February, 2018. On 20/6/2018, petitioner no.1 gave birth to petitioner no.2. The respondent and his family members, despite conveying this good news, did not bother to come and see the baby. The respondent refused to cohabit with petitioner no.1. He sent false notice to petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.1 since then continued to reside at her parental house. The respondent has not made any provision for their maintenance. The petitioners are not in a position to maintain themselves. They have no source of income. It is stated that since the ill-treatment and torture became unbearable, petitioner no.1 lodged report with the police and on the basis of the said report, FIR was registered against the respondent and his family members for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent is serving as a Manager in New Subhedar Co-operative Bank, Amravati and getting Rs.30, 000.00 per month as salary. The respondent and his family members owns agricultural land. The respondent gets Rs.3, 00, 000.00 per year as income from the agricultural land. His father is a pensioner. The petitioners are the only persons dependent on the respondent. Therefore, the petitioners claimed Rs.15, 000.00 each towards maintenance. 4. The respondent filed written statement and opposed the petition. He admitted his relations with petitioner nos.1 and 2. He has denied the allegations of ill-treatment and torture meted out to petitioner no.1. On the contrary, he made serious allegations against petitioner no.1. According to him, petitioner no.1 has affinity towards her parents and therefore, she was reluctant to stay with him. Petitioner no.1 was behaving in very arrogant manner with him and his family members. After one month of the marriage, she went, on her own, to her parents' house. She did not come back. She refused to maintain contact with the respondent. She did not attend phone calls of the respondent. The petitioner no.1, according to the respondent, told that her marriage was solemnized with him by her parents against her wish and desire. Petitioner no.1 insulted the respondent and his family members. She quarreled with the respondent and his family members. She refused to maintain contact with the respondent. She did not attend phone calls of the respondent. The petitioner no.1, according to the respondent, told that her marriage was solemnized with him by her parents against her wish and desire. Petitioner no.1 insulted the respondent and his family members. She quarreled with the respondent and his family members. The respondent and his parents tried to convince petitioner no.1, but to no use. During her stay at the house of the respondent, she would always talk on mobile phone with strangers. On one occasion, the respondent saw the obscene and objectionable messages on her phone. Petitioner no.1 got annoyed when she was asked about it. However, she admitted her guilt and said that she will not repeat the same in future. The respondent informed about this fact to her parents. After this incident, for few days, she behaved properly, however after few days she started her original behaviour. When petitioner no.1 became pregnant, she extended threat of abortion. The respondent convinced her not to do so. The petitioner no., thereafter, on her own left his house and discontinued her relations with the respondent and his family members. The respondent tried his level best to establish cohabitation with the petitioner no.1, but there was no positive response from petitioner no.1. The respondent, therefore, on 25/7/2018 sent a letter to petitioner no.1 and requested her to join him for cohabitation. She refused to accept the letter. He, therefore, sent a legal notice on 16/8/2018 and called upon her to join him for cohabitation. Despite receipt of the notice, petitioner no.1 failed to come back to his house. In the meantime, the respondent lost his job. He is not doing any work. He has denied his salary. He has also denied his income from the agricultural land. It is the case of the respondent that petitioner no.1 is well qualified and doing service in a private company. She is getting Rs.10, 000.00 per month towards salary. According to him, petitioner nos.1 and 2 are, therefore, not entitled to get maintenance. 5. The parties adduced their evidence before the Family Court. Petitioner no.1 has examined herself as sole witness. She has relied upon the number of documents. The respondent examined himself as sole witness. He has placed on record the documents. According to him, petitioner nos.1 and 2 are, therefore, not entitled to get maintenance. 5. The parties adduced their evidence before the Family Court. Petitioner no.1 has examined herself as sole witness. She has relied upon the number of documents. The respondent examined himself as sole witness. He has placed on record the documents. Learned Judge on appreciation of the evidence found substance in the petition and therefore, quantified the maintenance as above. Being aggrieved by this judgment and order, the respondent is before this Court. 6. I have heard Mr. S. B. Gandhe, learned advocate for the respondent/applicant and Mr. M. R. Kalar, learned advocate for the petitioners/non-applicants Perused the record and proceedings. 7. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the petitioners have filed proceeding under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the D.V. Act" for short) against the respondent and his family members before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur. Learned advocate pointed out that in the said proceeding, the petitioners had applied for grant of interim maintenance and learned Magistrate has awarded interim maintenance @ Rs.2, 000.00 per month each to petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2. Learned advocate submitted that petitioner no.1 has suppressed this fact from the Family Court. Learned advocate further submitted that copy of the said order was placed on record by the respondent, however the learned Judge of the Family Court has not taken the same into consideration. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that the maintenance quantified by the learned Judge of the Family Court is on higher side and therefore, needs to be reduced. Learned advocate further submitted that there is material on record to show that the respondent tried his level best to bring the petitioner no.1 back for cohabitation. However, the adamant approach of petitioner no.1 could not fructify his sincere and genuine efforts. Learned advocate further submitted that while quantifying the maintenance, the learned Judge has not taken into consideration the fact that on the date of evidence of the parties, the respondent had lost his job. Learned advocate submitted that without an iota of evidence on the point of income of the respondent, excessive and exorbitant maintenance has been awarded. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that the order is required to be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned advocate submitted that without an iota of evidence on the point of income of the respondent, excessive and exorbitant maintenance has been awarded. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that the order is required to be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, petitioner no.1 has proved that on account of failure of her father to fulfil the demand of dowry, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty. Learned advocate submitted that on the basis of the FIR lodged by petitioner no.1, the prosecution for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A read with Sec. 34 of the IPC has been launched against the respondent and his family members. Learned advocate submitted that in the normal circumstances, there was no reason for the petitioner no.1 to lead such life. Learned advocate submitted that the respondent and his family members have driven out petitioner no.1 from the matrimonial home and as such she has been forced and compelled to take shelter at the house of her parents. Learned advocate submitted that sincere wish and desire of petitioner no.1 to establish cohabitation with the respondent could not be fructified due to adamant behaviour of the respondent and his family members. Learned advocate submitted that even if the interim maintenance granted in the DV Act proceeding is taken into consideration, the maintenance quantified by the Family Court by no means could be said to be excessive and exorbitant. Learned advocate submitted that the respondent did not file the statement of assets and liabilities showing his real income as well as other sources of income. Learned advocate submitted that against the demand of Rs.15, 000.00 per month towards maintenance, the learned Judge has quantified the monthly maintenance for petitioner nos.1 and 2, which is less than 35% of their claim. Learned advocate submitted that the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court is well reasoned order and therefore, does not warrant interference. 9. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, I have gone through the record and proceedings. I have perused the evidence of petitioner no.1 and the evidence of the respondent. It is seen on perusal of their evidence that in their respective examination-in-chief, they have reiterated the facts stated by them in their respective pleadings. 9. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, I have gone through the record and proceedings. I have perused the evidence of petitioner no.1 and the evidence of the respondent. It is seen on perusal of their evidence that in their respective examination-in-chief, they have reiterated the facts stated by them in their respective pleadings. As far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, she has stated that when the ill-treatment and torture at the hands of the respondent and her family members became unbearable, by way of last resort, she and her parents reported the matter to the police. It is to be noted that on the report of petitioner no.1, crime bearing No. 863/2018 came to be registered against the respondent and his family members for the offences punishable under Ss. 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC. A copy of the FIR is at Exh.26. A copy of the report lodged by the informant/petitioner no.1 with police is at Exh.25. Petitioner no.1 has produced on record the acknowledgment of the RTGS transactions, whereby an amount of Rs.2, 50, 000.00 was sent directly to the account of the respondent. It is seen that the contents of these documents were not proved and therefore, they are given Article numbers. However, the respondent in his evidence has admitted that the amount of Rs.2, 50, 000.00 was transferred to his account by the father of petitioner no.1. This fact would show that at the time of engagement, an amount of Rs.2, 50, 000.00 was transferred by the father of petitioner no.1 to the account of the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that before the marriage, the respondent and his family members had started showing their true colour. However, after threat of her father to report the matter to police on account of demand of dowry, the marriage was performed. It is the case of the petitioner no.1 that the respondent and his family members continued to demand Rs.5, 00, 000.00 towards dowry. She has stated that her father was not financially well off and therefore, he could not fulfil the said demand. It is stated that therefore, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the respondent as well as his other family members. She has stated that her father was not financially well off and therefore, he could not fulfil the said demand. It is stated that therefore, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the respondent as well as his other family members. Petitioner no.1 in her evidence has described the ill-treatment and beating meted out to her by the respondent and his family members. It is pertinent to note that on the report of petitioner no.1, the crime was registered after investigation. On the basis of the evidence collected during the course of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the respondent and his family members. In my view, this material fully corroborates the version of petitioner no.1. 10. Petitioner no.1 has stated that on account of the illtreatment, her father came to the house of the respondent and tried to convince him and his family members. It is stated that it was of no use. Petitioner no.1 has stated that she was beaten black and blue and driven out of the house. She has stated that since then she has taken shelter at the house of her parents. She has also stated that after birth of her son, the respondent and his family members did not come to see the child. She has further stated that all her efforts to establish cohabitation with the respondent have failed due to adamant stance of the respondent. On all these aspects, petitioner no.1 was subjected to cross-examination. However, nothing has been elicited in her crossexamination to discard and disbelieve her evidence. 11. The respondent in his evidence has admitted that criminal case is pending against him and his family members on the basis of the report lodged by petitioner no.1. In his evidence, he has stated that from day one of his marriage with petitioner no.1, she was not happy. Petitioner no.1 was reluctant to stay with him. He has stated that behaviour of petitioner no.1 was arrogant towards him and his family members. She would quarrel with him and his family members. He has further stated that one day when he checked the mobile phone of petitioner no.1, he found obscene and objectionable messages on her mobile phone. On being confronted with this position, petitioner no.1 accepted her guilt and assured to improve her conduct and behaviour. She would quarrel with him and his family members. He has further stated that one day when he checked the mobile phone of petitioner no.1, he found obscene and objectionable messages on her mobile phone. On being confronted with this position, petitioner no.1 accepted her guilt and assured to improve her conduct and behaviour. He has stated that he had brought this fact to the notice of her parents. He has stated that petitioner no.1 subjected him and his parents to mental torture. 12. It is to be noted that the evidence of the parties on this aspect is oath against oath. They have not examined any independent witness. It is to be noted that after marriage, the marriage was consummated. Petitioner no.1 had conceived. Their marriage took place on 21/2/2017. Petitioner no.1 gave birth to petitioner no.2 on 20/6/2018. This fact would indicate that there is substance in the contention of petitioner no.1 that through out she attempted to continue her marital relations with the respondent. It is pertinent to note that if petitioner no.1 had reservations about her marital relations with the respondent, as stated by the respondent, then she would not have established the marital relations with him. In my view, this fact would show that there is substance in her contention. It is pertinent to note that the respondent has not placed on record any other material to substantiate his contention. Therefore, on weighing the evidence of the parties on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities, the evidence of petitioner no.1 appears more probable and acceptable. On the basis of this evidence, petitioner no.1 has proved that she was driven out of the matrimonial home and since then she has been residing with her parents. Admittedly, the respondent has not made any provision for maintenance of petitioner nos.1 and 2. The respondent has not placed on record any convincing reason for the same. It, therefore, goes without saying that the respondent has failed and neglected to maintain the petitioners without reasonable cause. 13. The parties were supposed to file their respective statement of assets and liabilities. Neither the petitioner no.1 nor the respondent filed the said statement on record. Petitioner no.1 has stated that she is not doing any job. She has no source of income. 13. The parties were supposed to file their respective statement of assets and liabilities. Neither the petitioner no.1 nor the respondent filed the said statement on record. Petitioner no.1 has stated that she is not doing any job. She has no source of income. She has stated that the respondent is serving in a cooperative bank at Amravati and getting salary of Rs.30, 000.00 per month. It is the case of the respondent that earlier he was serving in a Cooperative bank, however, in the recent times he has lost his job. The respondent has stated that petitioner no.1 is doing service in a private company and earning Rs.10, 000.00 per month. On both these points, the respondent has not adduced any evidence. The evidence of the respondent is in the form of his bare words. In order to fortify his contention, he could have filed the statement of his assets and liabilities. It has come on record that his father is a pensioner and nobody, except the petitioners, is dependent on him. The petitioners have categorically stated that the respondent gets income of Rs.3, 00, 000.00 per annum from the agricultural land. There is no denial of the statement of the petitioner no.1 that the respondent and his family owns agricultural land. In the absence of any cogent and concrete evidence, it cannot be accepted that the respondent has lost his job. This statement could have been supported by the documentary evidence, however, no documentary evidence is placed on record. No explanation has been placed on record for non-production of such important evidence. The respondent is an able bodied person. Petitioner no.1 and the respondent are well qualified. They are from well to do family. They must, therefore, be accustomed to the descent life. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to lead decent life style. In order to lead descent life befitting the status of the respondent, the respondent is under legal obligation to provide money for their maintenance. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to get maintenance from the respondent. 14. The question that needs to be addressed in the above background is with regard to the quantum of maintenance. In order to lead descent life befitting the status of the respondent, the respondent is under legal obligation to provide money for their maintenance. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to get maintenance from the respondent. 14. The question that needs to be addressed in the above background is with regard to the quantum of maintenance. Learned advocate for the petitioners made a grievance that the interim maintenance awarded @ Rs.2, 000.00 per month each to the petitioner nos.1 and 2, has not been taken into consideration by the Family Court while quantifying the maintenance in this petition. Learned advocate submitted that the learned Judge of the Family Court has not even discussed this aspect in his judgment. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that the maintenance quantified in this petition is excessive and exorbitant. In my view, even if the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the respondent are accepted as it is, even then I do not see any reason to conclude that the maintenance awarded in this case is excessive, exorbitant and unreasonable. The petition under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. has been finally decided. The D.V. Act proceeding is still pending. The maintenance granted in the D.V. Act proceeding is by way of an interim measure. It, therefore, goes without saying that while deciding the issue of maintenance in the D.V. Act proceeding, this order can be made use of by the respondent. The respondent can very well convince learned Magistrate to decide the appropriate quantum of maintenance. One does not know at this moment whether the Court in D.V.Act proceeding would grant the maintenance or not at the stage of its final adjudication. Therefore, in my view, it cannot be said that the quantum of maintenance is not just and reasonable. Learned Judge of the Family Court has taken all the facts into consideration and after taking into consideration the facts and material in totality, has quantified the maintenance. In my view, the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, does not warrant interference on any count. The application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. In my view, the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, does not warrant interference on any count. The application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, it is made clear that it would be open for the respondent to advance his submissions before the learned Magistrate, where the D.V. Act proceeding is pending, for taking into consideration the quantum of maintenance granted by the Family Court, while considering the prayer of the petitioners for maintenance in D.V. Act proceeding as well as for the purpose of quantifying the maintenance.