Gender Justice is assuming great importance of late. Gang-rapes, dowry-deaths etc. have brought this aspect in prominence. No less important is the human aspect concerning destitute and dejected women. Provisons in Section 125 of the Criminal Pro­cedure Code have a great social purpose behind them. Their object is to compel the man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to society in respect of his wife and children. As stated in Bhagawan Dutt vs. Kamala Devi, AIR 1975 SC 83 by providing a simple, speedy but limited relief these provisions seek to ensure that the neglected wife and children are not left begarred and destituted on the scrap-heap of society and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their subsistence. It is a pity that an average Indian woman his to depend throughout her life on somebody else for her own subsistence-on the parents during be chilhood, on husband after marriage and on her children in old age. Be that as it may, for the invaluable service and contribution to the society, they do need all reasonable protection from all concerned. 2. In the present case a wife had to approach a criminal court for claiming maintenance from her husband. It is a pity that this had to be done within less than a year of their marriage. The parties had got wed on 9.4.78, and by 24.10.78 the wife had to leave the company of her husband, because she could not stand the torture on her. The petition for maintenance was filed on 41.79 and after some vaoolication, the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate has awarded a monthly sum of Rs. 100/-with effect from August, 1980. The husband has knocked the doors of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. 3. Shri Choudhury in his forceful argument has stated that as the petitioner was willing to taka back the opposite-party and is still prepared to do so, the opposite-party was not entitled in law to any maintenance as she had refused to live with the petitioner without "just ground". According to him, there is no sufficient reasons as to why the opposite party should not live with her husband. There is no doubt that if the wife is unrea­sonably refusing to live with her husband who is prepared to provide her with a matrimonial home, she would not be entitled to maintenance. 4. According to him, there is no sufficient reasons as to why the opposite party should not live with her husband. There is no doubt that if the wife is unrea­sonably refusing to live with her husband who is prepared to provide her with a matrimonial home, she would not be entitled to maintenance. 4. Let it be seen whether there was just cause for the wife in leaving the petitioner and thereafter in refusing to go to live with him. Before this is examined, let us remind that the concept that the object of Section 125 is only to provide for appropriate food, clothing and lodging for a wife has become out dated. Refere­nce may only be made in this connection to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sirojmohmed Khan vs. Hafizunnisa, AIR 1981 SC 1972 where Fazal Ali, J. spoke on this aspect thus in para 14 : "This concept has now become completely out-dated and absolutely archiac. After the International Year of Women when all the important countries of the world are trying to give the fair sex their rightful place in society and are working for complete emancipation of women by brea­king the old shackles and bondage in which they were involved, it is difficult to accept the contention that the salutary provisions of the Code are meant to provide wife merely with food, clothing and lodging as if she is only it chattel and is to depend on the sweet will and mercy of the husband". 5. What had led the wife to leave the husband in the instant case was, according to her, the torture by the husband. Though she had stated in her petition that on 24.10.78 the had been driven out with only the clothings on her person after beating her severely, in evidence she gave a different story. As admi­tted by her in cross-examination, she had really left on her own almost surreptitiously on the morning of 24.10.78, but then she had been threatened on the previous night. Not only this, she had been once physically assaulted as well which had even left some indelible marks on her hand. Now, if a newly married wife is treated like this, can there may be no reasonable appre­hension in her mind about further assaults ? 6. According to Shri Choudhury nothing of the kind as alleged by the wife bad happened. Now, if a newly married wife is treated like this, can there may be no reasonable appre­hension in her mind about further assaults ? 6. According to Shri Choudhury nothing of the kind as alleged by the wife bad happened. The real cause of parting company with the petitioner was that the opposite party came from Hailakandi town and could not somehow adjust in the rural surroundings where the house of the petitioner is situated. This apart, she showed her disinclination in doing house-hold work. This is a story told by the petitioner only. It is not believable that a Hindu lady after having had married a village teacher, as is the petitioner, would just leave her matrimonial home for the above reasons. I do not also think if it was only the negligence on the part of the petitioner which was the parting cause as has been mentioned by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate-the foundation for this thin­king being remaining of the petitioner away from the house from 8 A. M. to 9 P. M. on call of duty. I would rather think that the young wife had to undergo some torture at the hand of her husband and this had led her to part company. It also needs to be mentioned that the petitioner even made some allegations in his written statement touching the character of the opposite-party. The written statement leaves no doubt that the petitioner started viewing the activities of his wife with suspicion because of her alleged connection with some young persons. This must have acted as another damper in the way of the opposite party in agreeing to live again with the petitioner. 7. So, I do not think if the impugned order needs rever­sal at the hands of this Court in its revisional capacity. As to the quantum, it is enough to gay that a sum of Rs. 100/-from a teacher whose gross earning is admittedly Rs. 675/- cannot be regarded as excess, as the sum of Rs. 100/- is very near the poverty line. It is indeed not possible even to make two ends meet with Rs. 100/-. In this connection it is submitted by Shri Choudhury that in a recent divorce proceeding between the parties, the learned District Judge, Silchar has also awarded a sum of Rs. 100/- as ad-interim alimony in favour of the oppo­site-party. 100/- is very near the poverty line. It is indeed not possible even to make two ends meet with Rs. 100/-. In this connection it is submitted by Shri Choudhury that in a recent divorce proceeding between the parties, the learned District Judge, Silchar has also awarded a sum of Rs. 100/- as ad-interim alimony in favour of the oppo­site-party. If this has been done, there is no doubt that the learned civil court would pass appropriate orders on being appro­ached by the petitioner keeping in view the fate of this revision. 8. Subject to the above observation, the petition is dismissed.