JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. The challenge in this revision is made to order dated 25.10.2023, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.31 of 2022, Smt. Ruchi Saxena Vs. Mukesh Kumar Saxena, by the court of Judge, Family Court, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”), by which, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.8,000/- interim maintenance to the respondent. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to it, after marriage on 22.04.2016, the respondent was harassed and tortured in connection with demand of dowry. She was expelled from her matrimonial home on 22.11.2017. The respondent is not able to maintain herself, whereas the revisionist works as an Assistant Manager and earns Rs.1,25,000/- per month. Based on the application, the proceedings of the case was instituted. In the case, an application for interim maintenance was also filed by the respondent. The revisionist objected to it and denied all the allegations. It has been the case of the revisionist that the respondent is taking tuitions, she also takes online classes and earns about Rs.18,000/- per month, whereas according to the revisionist, he has two daughters to maintain and he spends about Rs.30,400/- per month on his daughters. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the respondent concealed her income; she did not reveal her bank accounts. It is argued that the respondent’s Bank Account No.54008100005050 in Bank of Baroda, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. He would submit that in the period of 18 months total about Rs.4 Lakhs were deposited in the account of the respondent, which she withdrew also. It is argued that this fact is not taken into consideration by the court below. 5. In the impugned order, the court had discussed the means of both the parties in their financial responsibilities. The application for maintenance has been filed by the respondent on 08.03.2022. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the account details of the respondent till 26.08.2023 are available. The court has considered these aspects and has noted that due to voluntary working in some Vishwa Nirmala Prem Ashram, the respondent had been received Rs.9,500/- till 25.08.2020. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the account details of the respondent till 26.08.2023 are available. The court has considered these aspects and has noted that due to voluntary working in some Vishwa Nirmala Prem Ashram, the respondent had been received Rs.9,500/- till 25.08.2020. Some of the documents that have been filed by the revisionist with regard to the income of the respondent, have also been considered by the court below. 6. In para 10 of the impugned judgment the court below has considered the salary of the revisionist which is more than Rs.1 Lakh and the net salary is Rs.56,408/- per month. 7. At this stage the court had not conclusively determined the rights of the parties. If any new fact, with regard to the income of the parties, is brought to the notice of the court below at any subsequent stage, the court would definitely consider it before recording a final conclusion with regard to the entitlement of the respondent on maintenance. 8. If a wife for her survival does some work, it may not disentitle her from maintenance. It is not expected that she would starve for death or beg for her living. Even it is stated that in 18 months, which expired on 26.08.2023, the respondent had got Rs.3,95,000/- in her account. It takes about Rs.20,000/- per month. In fact, it does not disentitle the respondent to any maintenance. 9. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the amount of interim maintenance granted to the respondent does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 10. The revision is dismissed in limine.