JUDGMENT : Sanjay Prasad, J. This Criminal Revision Application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment of maintenance dated 10.05.2022 passed by the learned Court of Sri Ajai Kumar Srivastava, Addl. Principal Judge, Addl. Family Court, at Giridih passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 220 of 2017 (u/s 125 Cr.P.C.), by which the learned Addl. Principal Judge has allowed the Original Maintenance Case No. 220 of 2017 by directing the petitioner to pay Rs.7,000/-(Rupees Seven thousand only) per month to Opposite Party No. 2-wife-Renu Devi & Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) per month to his minor son O.P. No.3 Krish Kumar @ Gullu till he attains the age of majority with effect from the date of filing of the application, i.e. 10.08.2017. 2. The case of the wife-Opposite Party No.2, in brief, is that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized in the year 2012 according to Hindu rites and Customs and after marriage, the O.P. No.2 started living at her matrimonial house at Saria, where she lived well only for a period of one year. Meanwhile, the couple was blessed with a son-O.P. No. 3 namely, Krish Kumar. It has been stated that the petitioner and his family members started demanding a cash of Rs.2.00 Lacs and a motorcycle and due to non-fulfillment of the said demand, the O.P. No. 2 was being tortured mentally and physically by the petitioner and his family members and they tried to kill her. The O.P. No. 2 informed her parents about the torture, then her parents went to her matrimonial house and requested not to torture the O.P. No. 2, but they continued to torture her cruelly and harass in all respects. It has further been stated that on 09.03.2017, the O.P. No.2 was brutally assaulted by the petitioner and his family members and after snatching her all ornaments worth Rs.2,50,000/-, she was driven out from her matrimonial house with her minor son and she anyhow came to her parental house and since then she is residing at her parental house. The petitioner did not show any intention to take back the O.P. No. 2 and her minor, inspite of several repeated request made by the parents of the O.P. No. 2 as well as by the Caste-Community people of Sahu Samaj, Giridih. The petitioner did not show any intention to take back the O.P. No. 2 and her minor, inspite of several repeated request made by the parents of the O.P. No. 2 as well as by the Caste-Community people of Sahu Samaj, Giridih. The O.P. No. 2 and her minor son are unable to maintain themselves having no source of income for their livelihood and they are on the verge of starvation. It has also been stated that the petitioner is a businessman and runs a wholesale business of Tobacco at Saria and earns Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lac) per month and besides this, he has other source of income also and he has got sufficient means for maintaining the Opposite Parties but the petitioner willfully refused to do that and neglected to maintain his wife and minor son. The O.P. No. 2 claimed Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand) per month for herself and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand) per month for her son, Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen thousand) in total per month as maintenance, against petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner, as per the show cause, is that the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. It has been admitted that the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2 are husband and wife and the couple has been blessed with one son. It has been stated that the O.P. No. 2 lived well at her Sasural only for a period of one year, but the O.P. No.2 with her son has left the house of the petitioner. The petitioner and his family members never demanded any dowry and never assaulted her. Besides this, the O.P. No.2 filed this Original Maintenance Case as well as a case under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. against the petitioner and his family members at the instance of her parents and enemies of the petitioner. It has further been stated that the petitioner had filed a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act bearing O.S. No. 200/2017 on 08.08.2017 against the O.P. No. 2-Renu Devi, when the parents and O.P. No.2 came to know about his case, then Renu Devi filed this present case and also a Complaint Case bearing No. 1185/2017 on 10.08.2017, which is still pending. Further, O.S. Case No. 200/2017 and OMC No. 220/2017 were sent to Mediation Centre, Giridih, where the dispute between the parties was resolved on 26.02.2018 and in pursuance of the said compromise, the petitioner and the applicant filed joint compromise petition and they started residing together peacefully. It has further been stated that the petitioner had no Tobacco business at Saria and the petitioner is simply a daily wage labour and earns when he gets work. 4. Heard Mr. Rahul Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, learned Spl.P.P. and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgment dated 10.05.2022, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Giridih, Addl. Family court, Giridih is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the impugned judgment shows non-application of mind by the learned Court below and as such the impugned order is vitiated in law and the judgment has been passed against the materials on record. It is submitted that O.P. No. 2 has suppressed the several facts before the learned Court below. It is submitted that the O.P. No. 2 has not given any proof of income of this petitioner. It is submitted that in the present case two documents have been exhibited on behalf of petitioner, which are Ext. A & Ext. B. Ext. A is the certified copy of plaint of O.S. 200/2017 filed Under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, as it is the O.P. No. 2 who has willfully not agreed to live the matrimonial life with this petitioner. It is submitted that the Ext. B is the income certificate issued by Jharkhand Government in which the annual income of this petitioner is clearly shown as Rs.72,000/-per year but the same has also not been considered by the learned Court below. It is submitted that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate that there is no ingredients of section 125 of the Cr.P.C. against this petitioner as the present case has been instituted by the O.P. No. 2 only in order to extort money from the petitioner. It is submitted that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate that there is no ingredients of section 125 of the Cr.P.C. against this petitioner as the present case has been instituted by the O.P. No. 2 only in order to extort money from the petitioner. It is submitted that after dismissal of the criminal appeal with regard to the offence u/s 498-A of the I.P.C., the petitioner has surrendered before the Court below and he has been released on bail by the High Court. It is submitted that the business of Tobacco has already been closed and no business is being run by the petitioner. It is submitted that O.P No. 2 has failed to prove the income of the petitioner and there is no documentary evidence to prove the income of the petitioner. It is submitted that Exhibit B is the Certificate issued by the S.D.O. and which shows that the petitioner’s annual income is approximately Rs.72,000/-per annum on 23.07.019 and which is valid up to 22.01.2020. It is submitted that O.P. No. 2-wife have willfully deserted the petitioner and as such she is not entitled to maintenance in view of the provisions of Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. and as such the Court below has committed illegality by directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/-per month to his wife and Rs.5,000/-per month to his minor son, in total Rs.12,000/-per month to the Opposite Parties and hence, the impugned judgment may be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned Special P.P. submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the Court below has properly appreciated the evidence of both the sides and has passed the impugned judgment after considering the income of the husband-petitioner. It is submitted that the Wife-O.P. No.2 and the child have been neglected by the petitioner and hence, this Criminal Revision is devoid of merit and may be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the O.P No. 2, after adopting the submission of learned A.P.P., has further submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below requires no interference. It is submitted that the Wife-O.P. No.2 and the child have been neglected by the petitioner and hence, this Criminal Revision is devoid of merit and may be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the O.P No. 2, after adopting the submission of learned A.P.P., has further submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below requires no interference. It is submitted that the petitioner, on the pretext of settlement, had promised to take his wife-O.P. No. 2 to his house but he himself had fled away from the D.L.S.A. Centre, Giridih on 08.03.2018, which has been recorded and mentioned in the Ordersheet before the learned Secretary, D.L.S.A., Giridih on 08.03.2018. It is submitted that the O.P. No. 2-wife has fully proved her case and her evidence is supported by the witnesses examined on her behalf. It is submitted that the petitioner is doing his business of Tobacco and maintaining Four Wheeler Vehicle and he is having two houses. It is submitted that O.P. No. 2, i.e. the wife and her son have been thoroughly neglected by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has also violated the order passed by this Court in the Anticipatory Bail Application passed by this Court in A.B.A. No. 1883 of 2019 on 29.04.2019 by which he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five lakh) by way of demand draft, but he did not pay the same. Thereafter the petitioner got the said order modified by filing Cr.M.P. No.3599 of 2019 by seeking further time to deposit Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five lac), but he did not obey the same. It is submitted that the petitioner is a liar and has deliberately concealed and disobeyed the order of even the High Court of Jharkhand passed in A.B.A. No. 1883 of 2019 and hence, this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 8. Perused the Lower Court Record of this case and considered the submission of both sides. 9. It transpires that the O.P.No.2-wife had filed Original Maintenance Case No. 220 of 2017 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned Principal Judge for a monthly allowance for herself and her minor son against the petitioner-husband. However, the said case was transferred to the Court of learned Addl. Principal judge, Family Court, Giridih 10. 9. It transpires that the O.P.No.2-wife had filed Original Maintenance Case No. 220 of 2017 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned Principal Judge for a monthly allowance for herself and her minor son against the petitioner-husband. However, the said case was transferred to the Court of learned Addl. Principal judge, Family Court, Giridih 10. From perusal of the order passed by the court below, it transpires that the wife and son who are petitioners in Original Maintenance Case No. 220 of 2017 and Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.3 in this Criminal Revision Application, i.e. Criminal Revision No.690 of 2022, have got examined three witnesses in support of her case who are as follows:- (i) P.W.1 is Renu Devi-the Wife (O.P. No. 2), (ii) P.W.2 is Manoj Sah, father of Renu Devi (P.W.1) and (iii) P.W.3 is Surendra Prasad Sahu 11. The husband i.e. petitioner in this Criminal Revision Application, i.e. Criminal Revision No. 690 of 2022 has got examined only one witness in support of his case before the learned Court below, who is as follows:- DW-1 is Pritam Kumar, i.e. the petitioner himself. 12. The husband i.e. petitioner in the present Criminal Revision Application has got proved the following documents as the exhibits in support of his case, which are as follows:- (i) Ext. A is the Certified Copy of plaint of OS-200/17 and (ii) Ext. B is the Income certificate dated 23.07.2019 13. Thereafter the learned court below, after considering the case of both the sides, has directed the husband-petitioner to pay Rs.7,000/-per month to his wife i.e. O.P. No. 2 in the present Criminal Revision and Rs.5,000/-per month to his son i.e. O.P. No. 3 in the present Criminal Revision, i.e. total amounting to Rs.12,000/-per month towards their maintenance allowances and which is to be effective from the date of filing of the application, i.e. from 10.08.2017. The Opposite Party has been directed to pay the maintenance for the each month by the 10th day of each succeeding month commencing from 01.05.2022. It was further directed that the arrears of the maintenance amount from 10.08.2017 to 30.04.2022 shall be paid to the wife and son by the husband in nine equal instalments, within the period of nine months. The husband was further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand) to the wife and son as litigation cost. 14. It was further directed that the arrears of the maintenance amount from 10.08.2017 to 30.04.2022 shall be paid to the wife and son by the husband in nine equal instalments, within the period of nine months. The husband was further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand) to the wife and son as litigation cost. 14. Now this Court has to consider the legality and propriety of the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Court below. 15. P.W. 1 is Renu Devi, i.e. wife-O.P. No. 2, who had stated in her evidence that she has been married with the husband-Petitioner Pritam Kumar in the year 2012 as per Hindu customs and lived in her matrimonial home properly till the year 2014 and in the meantime, the couple has been blessed with one son, namely Krish Kumar, i.e. O.P. No.3. However, after 2014, her in-law members started demanding dowry and assaulted her and tried to kill her by burning the gas oven and although her family members of her parental home tried to pacify them but they continued to commit torture upon her continuously and on 09.3.2017 she was ousted from her matrimonial home after snatching her jewellery and assaulting her and then she went to her Maike. Thereafter, a Panchayati was convened but her in-law members did not attend the Panchayati. During pendency of case, her husband took her to her matrimonial home after entering into compromise but again he started assaulting her and ousted her by taking her to mediation centre. She stated that she is not being paid expenses for food and maintenance etc. however, his husband is running a whole sale shop of Khaini, i.e. Tobacco and is earning Rs.1,00,000/-per month and apart from this he has got a four wheeler vehicle, but he is not paying maintenance to her and she has no source of income and hence she may be given an amount of Rs.20,000/-per month for maintenance of her and her child. 16. During cross-examination she, i.e. P.W.1 has stated that her relations with her husband and in-law members were cordial till the year 2014 and for the first time she was assaulted on 15th June, 2015, but she has not submitted any written application for the said occurrence and her fooding was also neglected since 15th June, 2015. 16. During cross-examination she, i.e. P.W.1 has stated that her relations with her husband and in-law members were cordial till the year 2014 and for the first time she was assaulted on 15th June, 2015, but she has not submitted any written application for the said occurrence and her fooding was also neglected since 15th June, 2015. She admitted that her husband had filed a case for her Bidai on 08.08.2017 which is still pending and hence she has filed the present case on 10.08.2017 and on same day i.e. on 10.08.2017 she had also filed a case against her husband and her in-law members for dowry torture. However, she has not filed the case in the police station on 09.3.2017, but had submitted a written complaint in ‘’Sahu Samaj’ but no Panchayati could be held although “Sahu Samaj” had sent notice to her in-law members but they did not appear in the Panchayati. She admitted that she had gone to her matrimonial home after entering into compromise in the case of Bidai (restitution of conjugal rights) and maintenance and she lived in her matrimonial home for around six months but even during this six months she was not able to live properly and for which she had filed an application in this regard before the Court below. She became unwell while living in her matrimonial home after compromise but her husband had delayed the treatment and treatment started after eight days, however, she was treated by three-four doctors and her husband never took her for treatment rather she was taken by her father-in-law for the treatment. She stated that she cannot give documentary evidence of income of her husband but her husband has got a four wheeler vehicle in his name, but she cannot file its paper. She stated that her son Krish Kumar is studying at L.K.G. at Madan Public School, Gangapur and she had no source of income and she is not being paid expenses for the grocery items by her father-in-law. She further stated that she is still ready to live with her husband and even when he had taken her back lastly but had not kept her properly but still she is ready to accompany him. She further stated that she is still ready to live with her husband and even when he had taken her back lastly but had not kept her properly but still she is ready to accompany him. However, she has also denied the suggestion that her husband has no source of income and is dependent upon his father and she has filed these two cases against her husband and in-law members to disturb them. 17. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.1, it is evident that she has fully supported her case for grant of maintenance and clearly stated that after being married in the year 2012, she lived properly till the year 2014 and she was firstly assaulted on 15th June, 2015. She has also asserted that even after entering into compromise in the case of restitution of conjugal rights and the maintenance case, she had been left by her husband at the mediation centre by non-fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the compromise. Thus, evidence of P.W. 1 is reliable. 18. P.W. 2 is Manoj Shah, who is the father of P.W.1-Complainant-Renu Devi and has stated that her daughter Renu Devi was married to the petitioner in the year 2012 as per Hindu customs and thereafter she was living in her matrimonial home for around one year and had given birth to a son namely Krish Kumar. However, after one year of marriage, her in-law members had started demanding dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakh) and motor cycle and used to assault his daughter. Even in June, 2015, her in-law members tried to kill her by setting her on fire by opening the regulator of the gas and then his daughter saved her life by fleeing away and had informed them and then they tried to convince her in-law members and returned back, however, on 09.3.2017, her daughter along with her son was assaulted and ousted from her matrimonial home after snatching her jewellery, clothes etc. and since then she is living in his house. They also tried for Bidai, i.e. restitution of conjugal right through “Sahu Samaj”, but her in-law members did not agree. He has also stated that his daughter has no source of income. and since then she is living in his house. They also tried for Bidai, i.e. restitution of conjugal right through “Sahu Samaj”, but her in-law members did not agree. He has also stated that his daughter has no source of income. He also stated that the husband-petitioner has got whole sale shop of Tobacco and maintaining a four wheeler vehicle and he is also earning Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh) per month and hence, Rs.20,000/-may be paid to her daughter and her son. 19. During cross examination, P.W.2 stated that the husband-petitioner has taken his daughter to her matrimonial on 08.3.2018 after entering into compromise before the mediation centre and his daughter lived there for four –five months but in the meantime his daughter was assaulted. He also stated that he learnt about demand of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakh) cash and motor cycle for the first time in the year 2014 from his daughter, but at that time he had made no complaint anywhere and no Panchayati could be held in the year 2014, though he could not disclose a particular date of assault but asserted that his daughter was continuously assaulted but he could not file any paper with respect to assault of his daughter. He admitted that his daughter has not made any complaint before Saria PS, Birni P.S., Dhanbad P.S. and even before the Superintendent of Police. However, he admitted that his son-in-law has filed a case for Bidai which is pending but he cannot say that this case was filed after two days of filing of case by her son-in-law for Bidai. He also could not produce the documentary evidence of income of the petitioner and for sale of Tobacco but stated that the said car belongs to the joint family. He further stated that the petitioner has got two brothers and one sister. He asserted that the petitioner had passed the inter examination and seeing his business/work, he has married his daughter with him. He had denied the suggestion that the petitioner is a daily wage labour and is working as and when he is getting work and still wants to keep his daughter. 20. He asserted that the petitioner had passed the inter examination and seeing his business/work, he has married his daughter with him. He had denied the suggestion that the petitioner is a daily wage labour and is working as and when he is getting work and still wants to keep his daughter. 20. Thus, from the evidence of P.W.2 it is evident that he is father of O.P.No.2 and has fully supported her case and stated that since the year 2017 his daughter started living in his home after being ousted from her matrimonial home on 09.3.2017, though for a period of four –five months she lived in her matrimonial home in the year 2018 but again she has been ousted in the year 2018 itself. He stated that petitioner has got two brothers and two sisters and they are living in the same house and parents of the petitioner are still alive. 21. P.W.3 is Surendra Prasad Sahu, who has stated the same facts as stated by P.W. 1 and P.W.2 and as such the same is not being discussed here, as it would amount to repetition. He also stated that the husband is doing whole sale business of Tobacco, i.e. Khaini and is earning Rs.1,00,000/-per month and is also plying one four wheeler vehicle on rent, but he is not giving any amount for maintaining his wife and son. During cross-examination, he stated that O.P. No. 2 is his grand-daughter in Gotiya and he learnt about the entire occurrence from Renu Devi, i.e. O.P. No. 2 and he also learnt about the demand of dowry in the year 2015, but not aware of filing of any case of dowry in the year 2015. However, he has stated that a Panchayati took place in the year 2017 on 06.3.2017 and he also attended it, but on that day no paper was prepared as it was an internal household Panchayati. He has admitted that two cases have been filed by O.P. No. 2 but he is not aware that a case for Bidai has also been filed. He learnt from the petitioner that he is a graduate, however, he could not file any documentary evidence of whole Sale shop of Khaini of the petitioner. He also could not file documentary evidence of his vehicle. He learnt from the petitioner that he is a graduate, however, he could not file any documentary evidence of whole Sale shop of Khaini of the petitioner. He also could not file documentary evidence of his vehicle. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.3, i.e. Surendra Prasad Sahu, it is evident that he also supported the case of O.P. No. 2, i.e. wife of the petitioner. 22. So far as the evidence of the Husband-petitioner is concerned, O.P.W. 1 is the petitioner himself, namely Pritam Kumar and he has stated during his evidence that he has been married with Renu Devi on 27.06.2012 but without any dowry and after marriage she started living with him and they have been blessed with one child, i.e. Krish Kumar, i.e. O.P. No. 3, on 29th June, 2013, who is presently living with his mother. He further stated that neither he nor any of his family members have ever assaulted, tortured O.P. No. 2 nor demanded dowry from her and so long as she lived in his house she was kept properly and she was given proper food, clothes etc. He also stated that both husband and wife have passed only matric. However, his wife Renu Devi does not like to live with him, rather she likes to live in her Maike. He stated that in March, 2017, his father-in-law and mother-in-law came to his house and stayed at night and with his consent they have taken his wife and son with the assurance that they will be sent back after one month, but even after one month they were not sent to his house and then he went to the house of his wife, but her Bidai was not allowed by her in-law members. Even his father had gone to the house of his daughter-in-law for Bidai but she along with his child was not allowed to accompany him. Thereafter, on 06.8.2017, he had gone to take Bidai of his wife in his Sasural but he was misbehaved and abused and then he filed a case of Bidai on 08.8.2017 and he had filed the certified copy of the plaint marked as Ext. A. Thereafter, his wife, having knowledge of this case, under the influence of his parents, has instituted this maintenance case on 10.8.2017 and another case of dowry torture on the same day. A. Thereafter, his wife, having knowledge of this case, under the influence of his parents, has instituted this maintenance case on 10.8.2017 and another case of dowry torture on the same day. However, they were sent for mediation before mediation centre at Giridih in both maintenance case and Bidai case and an agreement was entered into between both sides on 26.2.2018 and in the light of the said compromise, he brought his wife and son back to his house. The wife submitted an application on 08.3.2018 and she was being kept properly. Thereafter, his parents had filed anticipatory bail application bearing, A.B.P.No. 831/2018 and he had filed A.B.P. No.1233/2018 before the learned District Judge, Giridih and both the bail petitions were referred to mediation centre and his wife, under the influence of her parents, went to her Naihar from the mediation centre and thereafter, both their anticipatory bail petitions were dismissed. Then he filed A.B.A. No. 1883/2019 before the High Court of Jharkhand and he was granted bail with certain terms and was asked to appear along with his wife for the purpose of grant of bail and he went to the house of his wife as per direction of the High Court, but he was misbehaved with there. In the meantime, period of eight weeks had expired. Thereafter, he has filed Cr.M.P. No.2131/2019 before the High Court of Jharkhand and he was ordered to go to his Sasural and stayed there for one night and to take away his wife and child in a rented house. However, when he went to his Sasural on 24.9.2019, in the light of the order of the High Court, then he was not allowed to enter into the house of his in-law members and they threatened him of sending him to jail. In the meantime, he sent legal notice through his counsel. Thereafter, he again filed one Cr.M.P. No. 3599/2019 after expiry of the period, which is still pending. He further stated that he is a poor person and is doing work of a labour and his annual income is approx. Rs.72,000/- and he is able to save only to the extent of Rs.2000-3000/- and is maintaining himself. He also stated that he is not able to maintain his wife and child separately, rather he is ready to keep them with him. Rs.72,000/- and he is able to save only to the extent of Rs.2000-3000/- and is maintaining himself. He also stated that he is not able to maintain his wife and child separately, rather he is ready to keep them with him. He stated that his wife is a healthy, educated woman and also knows embroidery and also earning Rs.5,000/-per month by giving tuition. 23. During cross-examination he stated that they are two brothers and he is the elder one but he does not know as to what his younger brother is working. He further stated that his wife is living in her Naihar without any reason along with his son Krish Kumar, who is aged around seven years, for about two years. He admitted that he is not giving any amount for maintenance for his son. He also stated that his wife has instituted a false case of dowry torture and his parents have been granted bail in this case and he has also filed his bail application before High Court of Jharkhand, which is still pending and he was directed to take back his wife in Bidai from her Naihar. He also stated that his wife is not doing any job anywhere, rather she gives tuition and is doing embroidery work, however, he could not file any certificate of embroidery. 24. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of O.P.W.1, it is evident that he is the husband of O.P. No. 2 and marriage between the parties is admitted but he appears to be an emboldened person as during his evidence he has even mentioned the direction of the High Court in an improper way by stating that he had gone to the house of his wife by the order of the High Court and to stay there and to keep his wife separately in a rented house, but he was not allowed to enter into the house of his wife. It further appears that he has given wrong picture of the direction of the High Court passed in A.B.P. No. 1883/2019 by stating that he was given bail on certain conditions and he was to appear along with his wife within eight weeks for grant of bail and he had deliberately not mentioned the direction of the learned Single Judge, by which he had shown readiness and willingness to pay interim victim compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- without prejudice to his defence by filing Cr.M.P. No. 3599 of 2019. However, the said amount has not been paid by the petitioner and the said fact is evident from the counter affidavit filed by the O.P. No. 2 in the present case and a copy of order dated 16.10.2020 has been enclosed as Annexure A in the counter affidavit dated 14.11.2022 filed on behalf of O.P. No. 2. It also appear from the said counter affidavit that the petitioner has not surrendered till date. 25. Thus, it is evident that on the one hand the petitioner is trying to take advantage of the order of the High Court to keep his wife and son and for paying Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five lakh) by way of interim victim compensation but he is so emboldened that instead of paying Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakh), he has not paid any amount and to his wife and he has thoroughly neglected her and had not paid any amount and till date he has not surrendered for non-compliance of the order dated 16.10.2020 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 3599 of 2019 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Thus, the evidence of the petitioner clearly shows that he has thoroughly neglected his wife and child for none of their fault and even he has disobeyed the order of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Cr.M.P. 3599 of 2019 on 16.10.2020 and in A.B.A. No. 1883 of 2019. 26. It transpires that the petitioner has got marked two documents exhibit ed, which are as Follows : (i) Ext. A, is the certified copy of plaint of O.S. No. 200/2017 and (ii) Ext. B is the income certificate of the petitioner, dated 23.07.2019, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Suria, Bagodar, Jharkhand showing annual income of the petitioner as Rs.72,000/- 27. This Ext. A, is the certified copy of plaint of O.S. No. 200/2017 and (ii) Ext. B is the income certificate of the petitioner, dated 23.07.2019, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Suria, Bagodar, Jharkhand showing annual income of the petitioner as Rs.72,000/- 27. This Ext. ‘B’ filed on behalf of the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration as it has been issued on 23.7.2019 by the S.D.O. after filing of the Original Maintenance Case No. 220 of 2017 and only to defeat the claim of the wife-O.P. No. 2. Apart from this, this certificate i.e. Ext.-B does not show as to on what basis it has been issued and the annual income of the petitioner has been assessed as Rs.72,000/- only. It is a general certificate issued by the authority on the application filed by the petitioner. It does not show that the authority issuing the above certificate is aware of the fact of pendency of Original Maintenance Case No. 220/2017 before the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Addl. Family Court, Giridih and hence, Ext. B cannot be taken into consideration to determine the income of the petitioner. 28. The petitioner has also not examined his father or any other witness to show that he is doing any business or any work apart from the work of labour as his witnesses might have been confronted with the work done by him and by his family members. Even the petitioner has stated deliberately in his cross-examination that he is not aware of the work done by his younger brother, which cannot be believed and it appears to be an absurd defence taken by the petitioner to conceal his income and the income of his family members including his father and brother. 29. It is difficult for a wife and family members to obtain the papers of the income of the family of the husband and son-in-law as these papers are not accessible to them. Although, they could have stated about the vehicle number which is said to be owned by the petitioner or his family members, but, even they failed to do so, it cannot be considered to be fault totally on their part as the vehicle number may be lost from their memory due to efflux of time of three-four years. 30. Although, they could have stated about the vehicle number which is said to be owned by the petitioner or his family members, but, even they failed to do so, it cannot be considered to be fault totally on their part as the vehicle number may be lost from their memory due to efflux of time of three-four years. 30. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the order dated 16.10.2020 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 3599 of 2019 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary) : “Order No.05 Dated-16.10.2020 Heard the parties through video conferencing. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for modification of the order dated 29.04.2019passed in A.B.A. No.1883 of 2019. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 29.04.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.1883 of 2019, the petitioner was given the privileges of anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner will be enlarged on bail on satisfying the trial court that he has taken the opposite party No.2 to his house and keeping and maintaining her with full dignity and honour as his lawful wife. The prayer for extension of time for the petitioner to surrender in the court below vide order dated 29.04.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.1883 of 2019 was extended by four weeks from the order dated 06.09.2019 passed in Cr.M.P. No.2131 of 2019. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner telephonically requested the father of the opposite party No.2 to bring the opposite party No.2 to his house and the father of the opposite party No.2 replied the petitioner that the petitioner has to come himself for this purpose. The petitioner along with his two friends went to the house of the opposite party No.2 but he was ill-treated and insulted and was not permitted to enter into the house of the opposite party No.2. It is next submitted that the petitioner because of the strained relationship and non-cooperation of the opposite party No.2 is unable to fulfill the said condition of taking the opposite party No.2 to his house and keeping and maintaining her with full dignity and honour as his lawful wife. Hence, it is submitted that the said order to take the opposite party No.2 be modified accordingly. Hence, it is submitted that the said order to take the opposite party No.2 be modified accordingly. It is then submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay ad interim victim compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- without prejudice to his defence in this case. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 29.04.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.1883 of 2019, be modified accordingly. Learned counsel for the State has not raised any serious objection. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the prayer to modify the order dated 29.04.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.1883 of 2019 is allowed. The order dated 29.04.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.1883 of 2019 is modified by directing the petitioner to deposit a demand draft of Rs.5,00,000/- as ad interim victim compensation without prejudice to his defence in this case drawn in favour of the opposite party No.2 within six weeks from the date of this order and to furnish the bail bonds as ordered vide order dated 29.04.2019 passed in A.B.A. No. 1883 of 2019 with further condition that he will not disturb or annoy the opposite party No.2 in any manner during the pendency of the case and the condition to take the opposite party No.2 to his house and keeping and maintaining her with full dignity and honour as his lawful wife is dispensed with. In case the petitioner deposits the said demand draft, the court below is directed to issue notice to the opposite party No.2 and on her proper identification, the court below shall handover the same to her forthwith. In case the petitioner pays Rs.5,00,000/-to the opposite party No.2, the same shall be adjusted towards maintenance, if any or full and final settlement, if any, between the parties. The order dated 29.04.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.1883 of 2019 is modified to the aforesaid extent only. This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly.” 31. It is well settled that in a matrimonial case, it is the tendency on the part of the husband to conceal his real income. 32. It is also well settled that it is bounden duty of a husband to maintain his wife and child. 33. It has been held in Chaturbhuj Vs. It is well settled that in a matrimonial case, it is the tendency on the part of the husband to conceal his real income. 32. It is also well settled that it is bounden duty of a husband to maintain his wife and child. 33. It has been held in Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai reported in (2008 ) SCC 316 at paragraph 8, as follows : “Para 8:-“In and illustrative case where the wife was surviving by begging, it would not amount to her ability to maintain herself. It can also be not said that he wife has been capable of earning but she was not making an effort to earn. Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. In Bhagwan Dutt V. Kamla Devi it was observed that wife should be in a position to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression “ unable to maintain herself” does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C.” 34. It has been held in the case of Sunita Kachwaha and Others vs. Anil Kachwaha reported in 2014 (16) SCC 715 at Para 7, 8 and 10 as follows:- “Para-7:-Inability to maintain herself is the pre-condition for grant of maintenance to the wife. The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her. In her evidence, the appellant-wife has stated that only due to help of her retired parents and brothers, she is able to maintain herself and her daughters. Where the wife states that she has great hardships in maintaining herself and the daughters, while her husband’s economic condition is quite good, the wife would be entitled to maintenance. In her evidence, the appellant-wife has stated that only due to help of her retired parents and brothers, she is able to maintain herself and her daughters. Where the wife states that she has great hardships in maintaining herself and the daughters, while her husband’s economic condition is quite good, the wife would be entitled to maintenance. Para-8:-The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant-wife is well qualified, having post graduate degree in Geography and working as a teacher in Jabalpur and also working in Health Department. Therefore, she has income of her own and needs no financial support from respondent. In our considered view, merely because the appellant-wife is a qualified post graduate, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself. Insofar as her employment as a teacher in Jabalpur, nothing was placed on record before the Family Court or in the High Court to prove her employment and her earnings. In any event, merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. Para-10:-The impugned order of the High Court dated 26.06.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 2303/2007 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay the maintenance of Rs.3,000/-per month to the appellant-wife as ordered by the Family Court and also pay the arrears of maintenance payable to the appellant-wife within the period of eight weeks.” 35. It has been held in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy reported in 2017 (14) SCC 200 at Paragraph 15, as follows:- “Para 15:-The review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC came to be filed by the respondent wife pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court when the earlier order dated 2-2-2015 awarding a maintenance of Rs.16,000 to the respondent wife as well as to her minor son was under challenge before this Court. As pointed out by the High Court, in February 2015, the appellant husband was getting a net salary of Rs.63,842 after deduction of Rs.24,000 on account of GPF and Rs.12,000 towards income tax. In February 2016, the net salary of the appellant is stated to be Rs.95.527. As pointed out by the High Court, in February 2015, the appellant husband was getting a net salary of Rs.63,842 after deduction of Rs.24,000 on account of GPF and Rs.12,000 towards income tax. In February 2016, the net salary of the appellant is stated to be Rs.95.527. Following Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari, in this case, it was held that 25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance. Maintenance is always dependent on the factual situation of the case and the court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors. Since in February 2016, the net salary of the husband was Rs 95,000 per month, the High Court was justified in enhancing the maintenance amount. However, since the appellant has also got married second time and has a child from the second marriage, in the interest of justice, we think it proper to reduce the amount of maintenance of Rs.23.000 to Rs.20.000 per month as maintenance to the respondent wife and son. 36. It has been held in the case of Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal and Another reported in 2020 (19 ) SCC 342, that even a wife who has been divorced on ground of desertion is entitled to claim maintenance at para 5 and 7, which are as follows:- “Para 5. Thereafter, in Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri this Court took a similar view: (SCCP 184, para 11) 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that once a decree for divorce was passed against the respondent and marital relations between the petitioner and the respondent came to an end, the mutual rights. Duties and obligations should also come to an end. He pleaded that in this situation, the obligation of the petitioner to maintain a woman with whom all relations came to an end should also be treated to have come to an end. This plea, as we have already indicated above, cannot be accepted as a woman has two distinct rights for maintenance. As a wife, she is entitled to maintenance unless she suffers from any of the disabilities indicated in Section 125(4). This plea, as we have already indicated above, cannot be accepted as a woman has two distinct rights for maintenance. As a wife, she is entitled to maintenance unless she suffers from any of the disabilities indicated in Section 125(4). In another capacity, namely, as a divorced woman, she is again entitled to claim maintenance from the person of whom she was once the wife. A woman after divorce becomes a destitute. If she cannot maintain herself or remains unmarried, the man who was once her husband continues to be under a statutory duty and obligation to provide maintenance to her." “Para 7. No doubt, as urged by Mr. Debal Banerjee. Explanation II to Section 125 9 CrPC by deeming fiction includes a divorced woman to be a wife and, therefore, a woman who has been divorced by her husband can still claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The question is how we should read the provisions of sub-section (4) in this regard, especially when we deal with those women, against whom a decree for divorce has been obtained on the ground that they have deserted their husband. Once the relationship of marriage comes to an end, the woman obviously is not under any obligation to live with her former husband. The deeming fiction of the divorced wife being treated as a wife can only be read for the limited purpose for grant of maintenance and the deeming fiction cannot be stretched to the illogical extent that the divorced wife is under a compulsion to live with the ex-husband. The husband cannot urge that he can divorce his wife on the ground that she has deserted him and then deny maintenance which should otherwise be payable to her on the ground that event after divorce she is not willing to live with him. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention of Mr. Debal Banerjee.” 37. It has been held in the case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 at Para77, 78, 79, 80, 112 and 113, which are as follows:- “Para-77:-The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. Para-78:-The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife. [Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7 ; Refer to Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290] Para-79:-In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it. Para-80:-On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications. [Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339] Para-112:-In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 51, the Supreme Court was considering the interpretation of Section 125 CrPC. The Court held : (SCC p. 196, para 13) “13.3. … purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125 CrPC. While dealing with the application of a destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalised sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve “social justice” which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path under the rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the courts to advance the cause of social justice. While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society.” Para-113:-It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in the orders passed by all courts, by directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the court concerned. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant.” 38. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner has thoroughly neglected his wife and children i.e. opposite party nos. 2 and 3. 39. In view of the discussion made above, it is evident that the judgment and order of maintenance dated 10.05.2022 passed by the learned Court of Sri Ajai Kumar Srivastava, Addl. Principal Judge, Addl. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner has thoroughly neglected his wife and children i.e. opposite party nos. 2 and 3. 39. In view of the discussion made above, it is evident that the judgment and order of maintenance dated 10.05.2022 passed by the learned Court of Sri Ajai Kumar Srivastava, Addl. Principal Judge, Addl. Family Court, at Giridih passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 220 of 2017 (u/s 125 Cr.P.C.) is a well discussed and reasoned order and speaking one and as such, no interference is required from this Court and hence the judgment dated 10.05.2022 passed by the learned Addl. Principal Judge in Original Maintenance Case No. 220 of 2017 is upheld. 40. Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 690 of 2022 is, hereby, dismissed. 41. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below by Fax.