ORDER : Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J. This Criminal Revision case is filed to set aside the order dated 17.11.2017 passed in F.C.M.C. No. 21 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Vellore. 2. The first Respondent in this Criminal Revision, along with the second Respondent/daughter, has filed F.C.M.C. No. 21 of 2015 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the Revision petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month to her and Rs.6,000/- to the minor daughter per month towards their maintenance. 2. According to the first Respondent-wife, her marriage with the Revision Petitioner-Husband was performed on 21.02.2005 and after marriage, both of them lived only for six months at the Army Quarters, New Delhi and thereafter, they moved to their native Village where the minor daughter was born on 10.12.2005. According to the first Respondent-wife, after the birth of the daughter, the attitude of the Revision Petitioner completely changed and he treated her cruelly. Further, the Revision Petitioner often left her matrimonial company and deserted her without any just and sufficient cause. It was stated that the Revision Petitioner is leading an immoral life and therefore, she filed a complaint to the District Collector as also the Army authorities, but there was no response. In such circumstances, she filed HMOP No. 245 of 2010 before the Sub Court, Vellore under Section 13 (1) (i-a) (i-b) of The Hindu Marriage Act , for divorce but it was not contested by the Revision Petitioner, with the result, an exparte decree of divorce was granted on 26.04.2011. According to the first Respondent-wife, the Revision Petitioner-husband is earning more than Rs.45,000/- per month but he did not maintain the Respondents, being his wife and daughter. The second Respondent-daughter was studying 4 th Standard in St. John's Matriculation School, Vellore at the time of filing F.C.M.C. No. 21 of 2015 but the Revision Petitioner-husband did not provide any financial assistance even to meet the educational expenses of the second Respondent- daughter. Therefore, she filed the aforesaid F.C.M.C. No. 21 of 2015. 3. On notice, the Revision Petitioner-husband filed a counter affidavit stating that within six months of marriage, because of the attitude of the First Respondent-Wife, misunderstanding cropped up and they got separated. Even though the elders in the Village made conciliation, the First Respondent-Wife refused to rejoin the matrimonial company of the Revision Petitioner. 3. On notice, the Revision Petitioner-husband filed a counter affidavit stating that within six months of marriage, because of the attitude of the First Respondent-Wife, misunderstanding cropped up and they got separated. Even though the elders in the Village made conciliation, the First Respondent-Wife refused to rejoin the matrimonial company of the Revision Petitioner. Instead, the First Respondent-Wife filed HMOP No. 245 of 2010 and obtained a decree of divorce on 26.04.2011. According to the Revision Petitioner-Husband, he is only earning a sum of Rs.12,550 out of which he is looking after the educational expenses of the minor daughter also. It is further stated that after five years of dissolution of marriage, he contracted a second marriage with one S.Suriya on 16.12.2015 and the salary he is earning is just and sufficient to maintain his second wife, father, mother and grandmother. The family of the First Respondent-Wife is affluent and she is resourceful enough to maintain herself and the minor daughter. However, on coming to know about the second marriage of the Revision Petitioner-Husband, after five years of grant of decree of divorce at the instance of the First Respondent- Wife, the present F.C.M.C. No. 21 of 2015 was filed seeking maintenance. Therefore, the Revision Petitioner-Husband prayed for dismissal of the F.C.M.C. No. 21 of 2015. 4. Before the Family Court, Vellore, the First Respondent-Wife examined herself as PW1 and Exs. P1 to P7 were marked. On behalf of the Revision Petitioner-Husband, he examined himself as RW1 and one Mr.Janakiraman as RW2 and Exs. R1 and R2 were marked. The Family Court, Vellore, on considering the oral and documentary evidence, passed the order dated 17.11.2017 directing the Revision Petitioner-Husband to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to the First Respondent-Wife and another Rs.4,000/- to the minor daughter as maintenance. 5. Challenging the Order dated 17.11.2017, passed in F.C.M.C. No. 21 of 2015, the Revision Petitioner-Husband is on revision. 6. Mr.Sathish Kumar for Mr. Santhosh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Revision Petitioner-Husband previously served in Indian Army. Even though the Revision Petitioner- Husband requested the First Respondent-Wife to come back to the matrimonial home, she refused to return. On the other hand, the First Respondent-wife filed HMOP No. 245 of 2010 and obtained an exparte decree of divorce. Santhosh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Revision Petitioner-Husband previously served in Indian Army. Even though the Revision Petitioner- Husband requested the First Respondent-Wife to come back to the matrimonial home, she refused to return. On the other hand, the First Respondent-wife filed HMOP No. 245 of 2010 and obtained an exparte decree of divorce. After five years of the First Respondent-Wife obtaining the decree of divorce, the Revision Petitioner-Husband contracted a second marriage on 16.12.2015. On coming to know about the same, the First Respondent-Wife, only to harass him, has filed F.C.M.C. No. 21 of 2015 before the family Court, Vellore seeking maintenance of Rs.9,000/- for her and Rs.6,000/- for her minor daughter. Out of the Second Marriage, the Revision Petitioner-Husband has children. It is evident that the First Respondent-Wife could survive with her income from 2005 to 2015. However, in the year 2015, on coming to know that the Revision Petitioner-Husband has contracted a second marriage with one S.Suriya, she has filed the F.C.M.C. No. 21 of 2015. Now, the Revision Petitioner-Husband retired from Indian Army and is in receipt of meagre amount as pension with which he has to maintain his parents, Second wife and children. 7. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the cross examination of the wife in F.C.M.C. No.21 of 2015, in which she deposed as follows: 8. By pointing out the above admission of the First Respondent- Wife, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner-Husband submits that the First Respondent-Wife admitted that the father of the Revision Petitioner- Husband has given a complaint to the District Collector stating that the whereabouts of the First Respondent-Wife is not known. It was also complained that the First Respondent-Wife is in illicit relationship with one Major Prakasam and requested to rescue his daughter-in-law (the First Respondent-Wife) from the custody of the said Major Prakasam. In the Cross- examination, the First Respondent-Wife also admitted that the said Major Prakasam is the husband of her sister. However, the learned Judge, Family Court failed to consider the said admission made by the First Respondent/Wife in F.C.M.C. No. 21 of 2015 that there was an allegation of illicit relationship against her by the Revision Petitioner-Husband. Further, the learned Judge had not considered the take home salary of the husband while granting maintenance to the first Respondent herein. However, the learned Judge, Family Court failed to consider the said admission made by the First Respondent/Wife in F.C.M.C. No. 21 of 2015 that there was an allegation of illicit relationship against her by the Revision Petitioner-Husband. Further, the learned Judge had not considered the take home salary of the husband while granting maintenance to the first Respondent herein. The learned Judge, Family Court had arrived at a conclusion that after deduction, the take home salary is Rs.36,000/- which is not correct. After deduction, the salary was Rs.22,000/- only and therefore, he seeks modification of the order. 9. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner-Husband also submitted that the learned Judge, Family Court, Vellore had relied upon the reported decision cited by the learned Counsel for the First Respondent/Wife in V. Dhandayuthapani v. Bhuvaneshwari. Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. Also, the learned Judge had relied upon the reported ruling in 2000 (2) SCR Page 58 in which explanation for 'wife' under Section 125 of Cr.P.C includes women who had been divorced or had obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried”. In the present case, the First Respondent- Wife admits that the Revision Petitioner-Husband contracted a second marriage with one S. Suriya and he also has children out of such second marriage. Further, the First Respondent-Wife herself filed HMOP No. 245 of 2010 and obtained a decree of divorce. While so, the First Respondent-Wife can no longer be regarded as the Wife of the Revision Petitioner-Husband. In such event, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Husband seeks modification of the order. 10. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the First Respondent/Wife submits that the order of the learned Judge, Family Court Vellore is a well reasoned order and it does not warrant any interference. The learned Judge had relied upon the decision in V. Dhandayuthapani vs. Bhuvaneshwari and had properly assessed the take home salary of the revision petitioner herein while granting a meagre amount as maintenance. It is not the case of the Revision Petitioner-Husband that the First Respondent-Wife is employed and earning income. The First Respondent-Wife is struggling to meet the educational expenses of the minor children. While so, the order passed by the Family Court, Vellore need not be interfered with. The revision has no merit and it has to be dismissed. It is not the case of the Revision Petitioner-Husband that the First Respondent-Wife is employed and earning income. The First Respondent-Wife is struggling to meet the educational expenses of the minor children. While so, the order passed by the Family Court, Vellore need not be interfered with. The revision has no merit and it has to be dismissed. Point for consideration: Whether the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Vellore in F.C.M.C. No. 21 of 2015, dated 17.11.2017 warrants interference by this Court? 11. Heard Mr. Sathish Kumar the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr. Sri Ram for Mr. D. Ravichandran, the learned Counsel for the Respondent. 12. Perused the typed set containing the deposition of the Petitioner as well as the Respondent and the order in F.C.M.C. No. 21 of 2015. 13. The contention of the Revision Petitioner-Husband is that the maintenance case had been filed by the wife 5 years after she obtained a decree of divorce in HMOP No. 245 of 2010 filed by her. The learned Judge had in the course of the discussion of evidence observed that it is alleged that the wife was in illicit relationship with her sister's husband Major Prakasam but it is not known as to what prevented the husband from filing counter and adducing evidence to that effect in HMOP No. 245 of 2010. Instead the Revision Petitioner-Husband remained ex parte in HMOP No. 245 of 2010. In fact, the First Respondent-Wife made allegation against the Husband that he has relationship with many women and specifically mentioned the name of one Malathi. However, the Revision Petitioner-Husband remained exparte and allowed H.M.O.P No. 245 of 2010 to be decreed exparte decree. 14. The learned Judge, Family Court, Vellore had discussed the evidence in page 5 of the judgment. As per the explanation to Section 125 of the Cr.P.C- Wife includes divorced wife who is not remarried. As per the evidence available in F.C.M.C. No. 21 of 2015, the First Respondent-wife had not remarried. On the other hand, it was the Revision Petitioner-Husband who got remarried on 16.12.2015. 15. By the time when F.C.M.C. No. 21 of 2015 was filed, the Revision Petitioner-Husband was serving in Indian Army. By the time when the present revision is filed, he retired from Indian Army. Therefore, he seeks modification of the order. 16. On the other hand, it was the Revision Petitioner-Husband who got remarried on 16.12.2015. 15. By the time when F.C.M.C. No. 21 of 2015 was filed, the Revision Petitioner-Husband was serving in Indian Army. By the time when the present revision is filed, he retired from Indian Army. Therefore, he seeks modification of the order. 16. The first Respondent-wife sought Rs.9,000/- per month for her and Rs.6,000/- for the minor daughter born to her and the Revision Petitioner/Husband. 17. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner-Husband submits that the Revision Petitioner-Husband had taken steps to bring the First Respondent -Wife to the matrimonial home, but it is she who has filed H.M.O.P.No.245 of 2010 and obtained an exparte decree of divorce on 26.04.2011. It is further stated that the marital life of the Revision Petitioner and the First Respondent-Wife was short lived only for 6 months and thereafter, the First Respondent-Wife deserted his matrimonial company. Further, by the time when F.C.M.C No. 21 of 2015 was filed in the year 2015, the minor daughter was aged 10 years and by now, she would have become a Major. 18. In the counter filed by the Revision Petitioner-Husband in F.C.M.C. No. 21 of 2015, it was stated that the Revision Petitioner-Husband was drawing a salary of Rs.12,550/- only out of which he was unable to maintain his family consisting of aged parents. The salary certificate of the Revision Petitioner-Husband was also marked as Ex.P-7 in which it was stated that the total salary of the Revision Petitioner-Husband was Rs.38,835/- and the take home salary was calculated as Rs.36,000/-. Taking note of the above, the learned Judge, Family Court, had ordered Rs.6,000/- per month to the First Respondent-wife and Rs.4,000/- per month to the minor daughter. Considering the fact that the Revision Petitioner-husband, after a decree of divorce was passed in H.M.O.P. No. 245 of 2010 filed by the First Respondent-Wife, had contracted a second marriage out of which a child was also born, he has to maintain his elderly parents and his family. Therefore, the amount of Rs.6,000/- ordered to the divorced First Respondent-wife is found excessive. In the course of her evidence, she had stated that she earns her livelihood till the date of filing the maintenance case through sale of milk and maintaining cattle for her livelihood. Therefore, the amount of Rs.6,000/- ordered to the divorced First Respondent-wife is found excessive. In the course of her evidence, she had stated that she earns her livelihood till the date of filing the maintenance case through sale of milk and maintaining cattle for her livelihood. The learned Judge failed to consider that aspect of the matter whereby the First Respondent-Wife earns something for her livelihood. 19. In the light of the above, the claim of the Revision Petitioner seeking to set aside the order is found reasonable. At the same time, he is duty bound to maintain his minor daughter/second Respondent herein. It is to be noted that the father of the Revision Petitioner-Husband had given a Petition to the District Collector that his daughter-in-law is missing and she is in the illegal custody of Major Prakasam, under whose influence she is said to have filed H.M.O.P. No. 245 of 2010 against the Revision Petitioner-Husband by making allegation that the Revision Petitioner-Husband is having illicit relationship with other Woman. However, the First Respondent-Wife has not adduced any evidence to substantiate the same. 20. In the cross examination of the First Respondent/wife in F.C.M.C No. 21 of 2015 she has admitted that before filing this maintenance case, she was earning her livelihood by selling milk and maintaining cattle. Therefore, she has income to maintain herself to some extent. Further, she herself filed H.M.O.P No. 245 of 2010 seeking divorce against the Revision Petitioner- husband. She admitted that elders of both families requested her to join the matrimonial company of her husband, but she wanted to live separately. This is very clear from the evidence of the First Respondent-Wife in F.C.M.C. No. 21 of 2015 which the learned Judge failed to consider. 21. As pointed out by the learned Judge, Family Court, Vellore by relying upon the reported decision in 2002 SCR Page 58 explanation clause in Section 125 Cr.P.C, for 'Wife' includes a women who had been divorced or who obtained decree from her husband or has not re-married and that is applicable to the facts of this case also. Taking note of the above that the First Respondent-Wife herself has filed HMOP No. 245 of 2010, but she has not so far re-married, the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court granting Rs.6,000/- to the wife is hereby reduced to Rs.3,000/-. Taking note of the above that the First Respondent-Wife herself has filed HMOP No. 245 of 2010, but she has not so far re-married, the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court granting Rs.6,000/- to the wife is hereby reduced to Rs.3,000/-. The maintenance ordered to the minor daughter Rs.4,000/- is not interfered with. 22. In the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Vellore, in F.C.M.C.No.21 of 2015, dated 17.11.2017 is found proper. At the same time, the quantum is found high. Considering the fact that the wife had filed maintenance case only after five years after she obtained a Decree of Divorce in the petition filed by her and she has resources to maintain herself, the quantum can be reduced. 23. Accordingly, the Point for consideration is answered in favour of the Revision Petitioner-Husband. In the result, this Criminal Revision is partly allowed. The quantum of maintenance awarded at Rs.6,000/- in favour of the First Respondent-Wife in the order dated 17.11.2017 passed in F.C.M.C. No. 21 of 2015 alone is modified as Rs.3,000/-. However, the maintenance ordered in favour of the Second Respondent-Daughter at Rs.4,000/- is hereby confirmed.