1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Shakeel Ahamed Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.811/2009) Date of Order :- 24th October, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Vijay Singh Shekhawat, for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.02.2009 passed by the Family Court No.2, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to the respondent No.2. Mr. Vijay Singh Shekhawat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the respondent No.2 has been staying away from the petitioner without any rhyme or reason. Therefore, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the petitioner happens to be engaged in the work of precious stone cutting; he does not earn more than Rs.1,800/- per month. Therefore, the direction to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent No.2 is highly onerous. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the respondent No.2 had clearly testified that she was subjected to both mental and physical cruelty for dowry. Thus, she has sufficient reasons for staying away from the petitioner. Therefore, the first 2 contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly untenable. As far as the question about the petitioner's income is concerned, the learned Judge has clearly observed that the petitioner has not brought the correct facts on record. According to the petitioner, he was engaged in the work of precious stone cutting in a village. Yet, according to his testimony, he was working in Jaipur. Moreover, he has given different figures as to the income earned by him. Therefore, the learned Judge rightly concluded that the petitioner is an unreliable witness. Since the learned Judge has validly appreciated the evidence and has drawn a valid conclusion, there is neither any illegality, nor any perversity in the impugned order. In this view of the matter, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-