ORDER : 1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Husband, assailing the Order dated 04.04.2017 in M.C.No.144 of 2015, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, (for short ‘the Family Court’) granting maintenance amount to the 1 st petitioner. 2. Respondents are the Petitioners, who filed the M.C.No.144 of 2015 seeking to direct the petitioner (respondent) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the 1 st Petitioner and Rs.10,000/- per month to the 2 nd petitioner towards their maintenance from the date of petition. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Family Court. 4. The brief facts of the petition are as follows: The 1 st petitioner married the respondent on 14.05.2009 at Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Jupudi Village, Krishna District, as per Hindu rites. At the time of marriage, her family gave Rs.1,00,000 in cash, 16 gms gold chain, and Rs.50,000 for household articles to the respondent's family. The couple was blessed with a child (2nd petitioner). From the beginning, the respondent showed disinterest in the 1st petitioner, openly admitting that he had married her against his will for financial gain. He humiliated her, was a habitual drinker and womanizer, and subjected her to physical and mental abuse along with his mother and maternal aunt. On 25.05.2009, the respondent assaulted the 1st petitioner, causing injuries to her eyes. Her mother treated her. Cohabitation occurred only when the respondent was heavily intoxicated. On 18.06.2009, she was forcibly sent to her maternal home, and her family was extorted to pay Rs.50,000 to allow her return. An additional dowry was demanded within six months. The 1st petitioner contracted an STD from the respondent and sought treatment, which he refused. During pregnancy, she received no support from the respondent or his family, who continued harassment and dowry demands. She gave birth to the 2 nd petitioner on 26.05.2010 via C-section; the child had a leg defect, for which her family spent Rs.50,000/- on treatment. The respondent and his family continued to demand dowry and subjected the 1st petitioner to further abuse, confinement, and attempted murder. She gave birth to the 2 nd petitioner on 26.05.2010 via C-section; the child had a leg defect, for which her family spent Rs.50,000/- on treatment. The respondent and his family continued to demand dowry and subjected the 1st petitioner to further abuse, confinement, and attempted murder. Despite ongoing harassment, the 1st petitioner is willing to maintain marital life for the welfare of her child. The petitioners are dependent on her mother and brothers for maintenance, having no independent income. The respondent, an employee in a corporate hospital earning over Rs.30,000/- per month, with immovable properties generating Rs.2 lakh per year, has sufficient means but deliberately neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners. 5. In the counter, the respondent admitted his marital relationship with the 1 st petitioner and their child (2 nd petitioner). He denied taking any dowry, stating that Rs.1,00,000 was given by the petitioner’s parents only towards marriage expenses. He alleged that the 1 st petitioner refused consummation for 15 days after marriage, cohabited with him for only about eight months, frequently visited her parental home without cause, neglected household duties, and behaved indifferently toward him and his parents. He further contended that the 1st petitioner deliberately avoided marital relations, used a medicinal gel to render herself insensitive, and caused him mental agony. Despite interventions by elders and multiple reconciliation efforts, she allegedly refused to resume cohabitation after repeatedly leaving his house, even after the birth of their child. He claimed she took her gold ornaments and belongings while leaving, declared she was unwilling to live with him, and ignored several mediation attempts. The respondent asserted that the 1st petitioner deserted him willfully, is employed as a nurse earning sufficient income, and therefore is not entitled to maintenance. He expressed readiness to accept her back if she chose to rejoin him. 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked. In contrast, the respondent did not adduce any evidence, and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. 7. The Family court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the petition in part by directing the respondent to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to the 1 st petitioner (wife) from the date of the Order, and Rs.3,000/- per month to the 2 nd petitioner (daughter) from the date of the Order until she attains majority. 8. 7. The Family court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the petition in part by directing the respondent to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to the 1 st petitioner (wife) from the date of the Order, and Rs.3,000/- per month to the 2 nd petitioner (daughter) from the date of the Order until she attains majority. 8. Felt aggrieved by the aforesaid Order dated 04.04.2017 in M.C.No.144 of 2015, the respondent/husband, filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent (revision petitioner) contends that the Family Court's Order granting maintenance of Rs.6,000 per month to the respondent-wife is illegal, improper, and contrary to law; the respondent- husband, a ward boy in a private hospital, earns only Rs.5,000 per month, has aged parents to support, and has no other source of income; the 1 st petitioner- wife, a qualified ANM working as a nurse, is capable of self-maintenance; further, the 1 st petitioner-wife made reckless and false allegations of cruelty and desertion against the respondent-husband, and maintenance was granted without proper findings regarding the husband's means, his neglect, or the wife's ability to maintain herself; the respondent-husband could not testify due to a prior sentence for breach of interim maintenance, and disbelieving his case under these circumstances was unjust; moreover, the wife is unwilling to reside with the husband, who remains ready and willing to reconcile; hence, the maintenance order of the Family Court is excessive, illegal, and liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (Respondents 1 and 2) affirmed the Family Court's findings and upheld the maintenance amount awarded. 11. I have heard learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record, including the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the Family Court. 12. Now, the points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the Family Court's impugned Order, directing the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the 1 st petitioner from the date of the Order and Rs.3,000/- per month to the 2 nd petitioner until she attains majority, is legally sustainable? 2) Does the Order passed by the Family Court warrant any interference? POINTS NO.1 AND 2: 13. 2) Does the Order passed by the Family Court warrant any interference? POINTS NO.1 AND 2: 13. It is settled law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra V. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand , (2004) 7 SCC 659 , that “in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well as 1 st Appellate Court”. 14. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court is to examine the correctness, legality, and propriety of the judgment/order passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. This Court is not ordinarily required to re- examine and re-appreciate the evidence which is already appreciated by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court unless it is found that there is clear non- appreciation of the evidence already on record or appreciation of inadmissible evidence, or that finding has been recorded without any evidence on record. If there is evidence on record on the point of decision formulated by the Courts below for concluding guilt, this Court is not required to enter into the records again to substitute its view in place of the view taken by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. 15. As evident from the record and as observed by the Family Court in paragraph 15, admittedly, the marriage between the 1 st petitioner and the respondent was solemnized in the year 2009. The 1 st petitioner resided with the respondent for a period of three years. She was examined as PW.1, and during her cross-examination, she stated that, as mentioned in her counter in O.P.No.81 of 2013, she was willing to resume cohabitation with the respondent. The respondent admitted in his counter that the 1 st petitioner’s parents had contributed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the marriage expenses. However, he contends that the 1 st petitioner left the matrimonial home after expressing before the elders that she was not interested in continuing her conjugal relationship with him and was ready to seek divorce. The Family Court, however, observed that if the 1 st petitioner had truly been disinterested in the marriage, she would have left the matrimonial home soon after the wedding. The fact that she continued to live with the respondent for three years indicates otherwise. 16. The Family Court, however, observed that if the 1 st petitioner had truly been disinterested in the marriage, she would have left the matrimonial home soon after the wedding. The fact that she continued to live with the respondent for three years indicates otherwise. 16. The judgment of the Family Court indicates that after the 1 st petitioner had adduced her evidence, the respondent failed to appear before the Court to give evidence. The brother of PW.1 was examined as PW.2. His testimony corroborated the evidence of PW.1, as he deposed in similar terms. He further stated that, at the time of the Bharasala function of the 2 nd petitioner, the respondent and his parents demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- for conducting the ceremony. PW.2 further stated in his evidence that the 1 st petitioner was suffering from a skin disease contracted through the respondent, who is employed as an ICU In-charge in a hospital. The petitioner contended that she requested the respondent and his brother to arrange for her treatment; however, they failed to respond. The material on record indicates that the respondent neglected to provide medical treatment to the petitioner despite her request. Although the respondent claimed that the 1 st petitioner had left the matrimonial home of her own volition, no evidence was adduced to support this contention. Furthermore, the respondent failed to produce any evidence showing that he had provided maintenance to the petitioners. 17. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 indicates that the petitioners are dependent on the 1 st petitioner's mother and brother for their livelihood and are surviving on their support. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the Family Court held that the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves and do not possess any movable or immovable properties. The Family Court further observed that if the respondent had a genuine concern for the welfare of the 2 nd petitioner, he would have contributed towards her maintenance and educational expenses. Although the respondent contended that the 1 st petitioner is employed in a hospital, no material evidence was produced to substantiate this claim. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 also reveals that the 1 st petitioner was a homemaker during her cohabitation with the respondent. Moreover, the respondent has not taken any specific plea, asserting that the 1 st petitioner was employed as a nurse while they were residing together. 18. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 also reveals that the 1 st petitioner was a homemaker during her cohabitation with the respondent. Moreover, the respondent has not taken any specific plea, asserting that the 1 st petitioner was employed as a nurse while they were residing together. 18. The Family Court took note of the fact that the respondent, in his counter, admitted to being employed as a ward boy in a private hospital and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioners, however, contended that the respondent is employed in a Corporate Hospital, earning more than Rs.30,000/- per month, and that he owns a house and other immovable properties. Although the petitioner did not produce any documentary or independent evidence to substantiate her contention regarding the respondent’s financial status, the respondent did not enter the witness box to support his case or to deny the version put forth by the petitioner. 19. It is significant to note that the respondent has not produced any material evidence to impeach the credibility of PW.1's testimony. Furthermore, the respondent has failed to enter the witness box to present his version of the events. He has also not refuted the specific assertions made by PW.1, particularly regarding his financial status and sources of income. 20. In Indian Bank, Chittoor v. V.R. Venkataraman , 2003 SCC OnLine AP 1160 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: 10. The Supreme Court has categorically stated in the aforesaid decision that presumption has to be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box to prove the case set up by him. Such a presumption has to be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act insofar as the 2 nd Defendant is concerned. Hence, it is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant that presumption has to be drawn for the non-examination of the 2 nd Defendant, and the version raised in her pleading has to be disbelieved. 21. In Iswar Bhai C. Patel & Bachu Bhai Patel V. Harihar Behera & Anr , AIR 1999 SC 1341 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: Having not entered the witness box and not presented himself for cross- examination, an adverse presumption has to be drawn against him based on principles contained in illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act. 22. 22. Given these circumstances, this Court finds no cogent reason or legal justification to disbelieve the testimony of PW.1, especially concerning the financial position of the respondent. The respondent's failure to rebut it lends further credence and weight to PW.1's version. Although the respondent has pleaded that he has no source of income, he chose not to enter the witness box to substantiate his claim, for reasons best known to him. In the absence of such evidence, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW.1. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve her evidence. 23. In the absence of any substantial allegation or proof of misconduct, cruelty, or any other just cause attributed to the petitioner, the version put forth by the respondent appears unsubstantiated and lacking in merit. Consequently, this Court finds that the petitioner’s version to reside separately does not appear to be willful or without cause. 24. The respondent has neither produced any evidence to establish his income nor demonstrated that the 1 st petitioner has an independent source of income sufficient for her sustenance without his assistance. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent has neither alleged nor proved the existence of any physical infirmity, disability, or medical condition that would prevent him from earning a livelihood and providing maintenance to the petitioners. 25. The Family Court has duly noted that the respondent is an able-bodied person possessing sufficient means to maintain the petitioners; accordingly, it awarded Rs.6,000/- per month to the 1 st petitioner and Rs. 3,000 per month to the 2 nd petitioner towards their maintenance. 26. As noted, this Criminal Revision Case challenges only the maintenance awarded to the 1 st petitioner at Rs.6,000/- per month, without disputing the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- awarded to the 2 nd petitioner. In the grounds of revision, the respondent contends that the 1 st petitioner is a qualified ANM and is employed as a nurse in a private hospital. However, as rightly observed by the Family Court, no evidence was produced to substantiate this claim. As already noted, the respondent did not enter the witness box to challenge the 1 st petitioner’s assertions regarding his financial capacity. Moreover, nothing emerged during the cross-examination of PW.1 that could discredit her testimony concerning the respondent’s financial means. However, as rightly observed by the Family Court, no evidence was produced to substantiate this claim. As already noted, the respondent did not enter the witness box to challenge the 1 st petitioner’s assertions regarding his financial capacity. Moreover, nothing emerged during the cross-examination of PW.1 that could discredit her testimony concerning the respondent’s financial means. Upon appreciation of her evidence, the Family Court correctly observed that PW.1 withstood the test of cross-examination, and no material discrepancies were elicited to undermine her version. 27. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the Family Court held that the respondent had not paid any maintenance to the petitioners up to the date of filing of the application for interim maintenance by the 1 st petitioner. The respondent has neither disputed the correctness of this finding nor produced any evidence to demonstrate that he provided for the welfare of the petitioners despite their separate living. 28. The Family Court reached a sound and justifiable conclusion, based on a thorough analysis of the evidence, in awarding maintenance to the 1 st petitioner. The revision petitioner’s request for interference lacks merit. This Court finds no misdirection or error in the Family Court’s findings, which cannot be disturbed. The maintenance granted is neither excessive nor arbitrary; it is consistent with judicial precedents and serves the objective of ensuring a reasonable standard of living for the dependent party. 29. Considering the entire record and the arguments advanced by both parties, this Court is satisfied that the Family Court rendered a judicious and well-reasoned order. The impugned Order is neither perverse nor illegal, and no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, and the points are answered. 30. In light of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons articulated above, Criminal Revision Case No.1419 of 2017 is hereby dismissed. The Order dated 04.04.2017 in M.C.No.144 of 2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, stands confirmed. Interim orders granted, if any, shall stand vacated, and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.