ORDER N.K. Singh, J. 1. The revision is directed against the order dated I6th January 1981, of the Sessions Judge, Guna, setting aside the order dated 7th March 1980, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raghogarh, under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') directing the non-petitioner-husband-Sher Khan (hereinafter referred to as the 'husband'; to pay Rs. 75/-as maintenance allowance to the petitioner-wife Bilquis Bai (hereinafter referred to as the 'wife'), and dismissing the application for maintenance filed by the wife. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the revision petition, are as follows :-- (i) The parties, who are Muslims, were married in the year 1973, after which the wife came to live with her husband at the latter's place at village Kumbhraj. However, from time to time, she used to visit her parents residing at Raghogarh. In January 1975, the wife went to her parents' house and thereafter sent the notice dated 16th April 1976 (Copy, Ex. P.1), to the husband alleging that he had neglected to maintain her, and asking him either to fetch her back and to maintain her properly or to make the payment of Rs. 3100/- settled as 'Mehar' at the time of 'Nikab'. On receipt of the notice, the husband brought the wife back from her parent's place at Raghogarh, and persons, named, Chand Mohammed (N. A. W. 1) and Jamil Khan, stood as sureties for her proper upkeep by the husband. However, after she had resided with her husband for about two and a half months, her father again took her back to his place at Raghogarh. (ii) On 28th April 1977 the wife filed the application for maintenance before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raghogarh. under section 125 of the Code, and a sum of Rs. 100/- per month was claimed as maintenance allowance, on the allegations, inter alia, that the husband was earning about Rs. 500/-per month from tailoring and had neglected to maintain her. It was also alleged that while she was living with the husband, she was often beaten and ill-treated by him. 100/- per month was claimed as maintenance allowance, on the allegations, inter alia, that the husband was earning about Rs. 500/-per month from tailoring and had neglected to maintain her. It was also alleged that while she was living with the husband, she was often beaten and ill-treated by him. (iii) In the reply filed thereto, the husband denied the allegations adverse to him and made the counter allegation that it was his father-in-law Gafoor Khan, who wanted to keep Bilquis Bai at his place, since she added to the family income by preparing bidis It was also contended that the wife was in good health and was able to maintain herself by preparing Bidis at her fathers place. (iv) Four persons, including the petitioner and her father Gafoor Khan were examined as the witnesses on behalf of the wife and one Chand Mohammed as the witness, on behalf of the husband before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raghogarh. Upon an assessment of the evidence adduced before him, the learned Magistrate passed the order dated 17th March 1980, directing the the husband to pay Rs. 75/- per month as maintenance allowance to the wife. By the impugned order dated 16th January 1981 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Guna, in revision, the order awarding maintenance allowance to the wife passed by the learned Magistrate, was set aside, on the sole ground that the wife had neither pleaded, nor proved, that she was unable to maintain herself. It was further held that the evidence adduced in the case disclosed that the wife, by preparing Bidis, earned sufficiently, so as to maintain herself. Accordingly, the application for grant of maintenance allowance was dismissed in revision. 3. The learned counsel for the wife, in course of the arguments before me, challenged the finding of the learned Sessions Judge to the effect that the wife was able to maintain herself, and as such, was not entitled to claim any maintenance from the husband. Arguments were also advanced on the point, as to whether the burden of proof of the wife's inability to maintain herself lay on the wife, or, the husband, or both ? Further, on the requirements of the pleadings in this regard. 4. Arguments were also advanced on the point, as to whether the burden of proof of the wife's inability to maintain herself lay on the wife, or, the husband, or both ? Further, on the requirements of the pleadings in this regard. 4. So far as the legal aspect of the matter is concerned, the learned counsel for the wife cited (i) Kharunnisa v. State of M. P. (Criminal Revision No. 208 of 1980, decided on 2nd December 1980-1981 Criminal Law Reporter (M. P.) Note 311; (ii) Munna v. Smt. Sohagi (Criminal Revision No 466 of 1980, decided on 20th March 1981--1981 Criminal Law Reporter (M. P.) Note 82; (iii) Narbadi Bai v. Kartihran (Criminal Revision No. 338 of 1979 decided on 11th September 1980--1981 M. P. Weekly Notes Note 35); and, (iv) Norbet Kispatta v. Mst. Tersa Kerketa (1971 Criminal Law Journal 1496). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the husband, cited (i) Gopal v. Krishnabai(Criminal Revision No. 93 of 1981, decided on 11th August 1981-1982 M.P. WN 199); (ii) Sakunbai v. Satyanarayan (Criminal Revision No. 278 of 1979 decided on 24th July 1940- 1980-II M. P. WN 239); (iii) Ratanbai v. Rajaram (Criminal Revision No. 299 of 1977, decided on 26th February 1979-- 1979 JLJ SN 73); and (iv) Bishambbhar Dass v. Smt, Anguri and another (1978 CRI LJ 385). 5. Here it will be useful to reproduce the relevant portion of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which runs as follows :- "Order for(sic) maintenance pf(sic) wives, children and parents, 125. (1) It any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain :- (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b).... (c).... (d).... a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct. 'Explanation: -For the purposes of this chapter,-- (a)... ... (b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. (2)...... (3)...... 'Explanation: -For the purposes of this chapter,-- (a)... ... (b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. (2)...... (3)...... Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just grounds for so doing. Explanation: If a husband has contracted marriage with another women or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him. (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. (5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that with sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order." 6. A plain reading of the provisions reproduced above, brings ut, that in an application for grant of maintenance allowance by the wife, the required ingredients are (i) if disputed, the proof of relationship of husband and wife, in which case, for the purposes of this section, the word 'wife' Will also include a 'woman', who has been divorced by or has obtained a divorce decree against her husband, but has not remarried; (ii) that the husband had sufficient means for maintenance of the wife; (iii) that the husband had neglected or refused to maintain his wife; (iv) that the wife was unable to maintain herself; and, (v) that during the relevant period, the wife was not living in adultery, or, without sufficient reasons did not refuse to live with her husband, or that the spouse did not live separately by mutual consent. However, the nature of evidence to be adduced by the parties would naturally differ from case to case, depending on the points which were in dispute in the case and those which were not disputed. 7. However, the nature of evidence to be adduced by the parties would naturally differ from case to case, depending on the points which were in dispute in the case and those which were not disputed. 7. On the point as to whether it was necessary for the wife to prove that she was unable to maintain herself, a perusal of the cases, referred to by the learned counsel for both the parties, described in para 4, above, would bring out, that it has been the consistent view of this Court, that the wife was required to plead and prove that she was unable to maintain herself. The law on this point has developed after 1973, in view of the addition in section 125 of the Code, of the words "unable to maintain herself" after the word 'wife', in contra-distinction to the provisions in corresponding section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. At the same time, it is worthy of note, that this Court has also held, that the proceedings under section 325 of the Code are not in the nature of 'civil proceedings' but are 'quasi-civil' and 'quasi-criminal proceedings' of summary nature. As such, the rule of pleadings could not be applied as strictly, as would be done in the cases of purely civil nature. 8 Having examined the nature of proceedings under section 125 of the Code, it would also be useful to reproduce the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Bai Tahira v. Ali Hissain Fissalli Chothla (A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 362 : 1979 Cri. L.J. 151), which have bearing on the question of burden of proof:- "The meaning of meanings is derived from values in a given society and its legal system. Art. 15 (3) has compelling, compassionate relevance in the context of S. 125 and the benefit of doubt, if any, in statutory interpretation belongs to the ill-used wife and the derelict divorcee This social perspective granted, the resolution of all the disputes projected is easy Surely, Parliament, in keeping with Art 15(3) and deliberate by design, made a special provision to help women in distress cast away by divorce. Protection against moral and material abandonment manifest in Art. 39 as part of social and economic justice, specified in Art. 38, fulfillment of which is fundamental to the governance of the Country (Art. 37). Protection against moral and material abandonment manifest in Art. 39 as part of social and economic justice, specified in Art. 38, fulfillment of which is fundamental to the governance of the Country (Art. 37). From this cotter of vantage we must view the printed text of the particular Code. Section 125 requires, as a sine qua non for its application, neglect by husband or father. The Magistrate's order proceeds on neglect to maintain; the Sessions Judge has spoken nothing to the contrary' and the High Court has not spoken at all Moreover, the husband has not examined himself to prove that he has been giving allowances to the divorce wife His case, on the contrary, is that she has forfeited her claim because of divorce and the consent decree Obviously, he has no case of non-neglect. His plea is his right to ignore. So the basic condition of neglect to maintain is satisfied In this generous jurisdiction, a broader perception and appreciation of the facts and their bearing must govern the verdict not chopping title logic or inhering with burden of proof" (Emphasis supplied) In view of the observations made above, by the Supreme Court, it is obvious that undue importance cannot be attached to the technicalities of the rules of pleadings and of burden of proof, in an application for maintenance under section 125 of the Code. No doubt, the wife is required to plead and prove that she was unable to maintain herself, but the rules of pleadings cannot be applied as strictly as in a civil suit and the evidence, if otherwise available on the record, can very well be looked into to arrive at a just conclusion, without attaching undue importance to the question of burden of proof. At the same time, the proceedings being of a summary nature, meant to provide early relief to the neglected wife or child in distress, the procedure should not be allowed to be cumbersome and long-drawn, so as to defeat the very object of the beneficent legislation. 9. The facts relating to the case under consideration, now may be examined, keeping in view the general perspective of law, discussed above, bearing on the point of nature of maintenance proceedings under section 125 or" the Code. 9. The facts relating to the case under consideration, now may be examined, keeping in view the general perspective of law, discussed above, bearing on the point of nature of maintenance proceedings under section 125 or" the Code. Here, it is pertinent to note that the parties to this case were married in the year 1973 and lived together till about the middle of the year 1976. In the meanwhile, the wife, had been going, off and on for fairly long periods, from her husband's place at Kumbhraj, to her parents' place at Raghogarh. After she went to Raghogarh in January 1975, she returned to her husband's place after more than an year, and only after the service of her notice, dated 16th April 1976 (Ex. P.1), on the husband, demanding either the maintenance or the 'Mehar' amount and after the furnishing of two sureties, named, Chand Mohammed (N. A. W. 1) and Jamil Khan. However, even this proved to be an exercise in futility, since she remained at her husband's place for a period of less than 3 months and, as admitted by her as P. W. 1, went away to her father's place, who again came back to fetch her. 10. The application for grant of maintenance allowance was filed by her subsequent to this i.e. on 28th April 1977. In the notice dated 16th April 1976 (Ex. P.1) sent by her to her husband there was no allegation of 'beating' or 'ill-treatment'. However, the allegation to this effect were incorporated in the petition for grant of maintenance allowance, obviously with a view to justify the separate residence of the wife at Raghogarh, These aspects of the case, which are indicative of the general unwillingness on the part of the wife to live alongwith her husband, at the latter's place at Kumbhraj, along with other members of his joint family, expose the hollowness of her allegations in regard to the alleged 'neglect' or 'ill-treatment' on the part of the husband. 11. 11. The admissions made by the witnesses examined by the wife, Hasan Khan (P.W.2) and Ghasi Khan (P.W.3), in their cross-examinations, to the effect that the petitioner's 'wife, was maintaining herself at her patents' place by preparing Bidis, has to be examined in this light, and thereby, it is brought out clearly that the wife was able to maintain herself, with her consequent unwillingness to live at village Kumbhraj with her husband and other members of his household. 12. The learned counsel for the wife contended, that her witness named Hasan Khan and Ghasi Khan, belonged to village Kumbhraj and not to Raghogarh, and as such, an adverse inference should not be drawn against the petitioner on the basis of the unwitting admissions made by them. However, there is no force in the argument. The distance between Raghogarh and Kumbhraj is not far; and the witnesses examined by the wife of village Kumbhraj cannot be said to be ignorant of her family affairs, at Raghogarh in the face of the admissions made by them. It is, thus, clear that the wife was able to maintain herself by preparing Bidis. 13. As regards the pleadings, the learned counsel for the wife, pointed to the averments made in para 2 of the petition that "AVEDIKA KA GUJAR BASAR HONA MUSHKIL HO RAHA HAI" to mean that she was unable to maintain herself. However, even after giving the widest latitude on the point, I am of the view that the sentence "AVEDIKA KA GUJAR BASAR HONA MUSHKIL HO RAHA HAI" can not be stretched as far as to mean that she was unable to maintain herself. As a matter of fact, it appears that while the petition for maintenance was being drafted, the legal requirement of the wife being unable to maintain herself was lost on whosever drafted the petition and he considered that even some difficulty (MUSHKIL) in meeting the expenses would suffice to enable her to claim the maintenance, which however does not meet the requirement of section 125 of the Code. Difficulty and/or inconvenience in maintaining oneself cannot be construed to mean the same thing as inability to maintain oneself and particularly in the circumstances of the present case where the wife has a definite income of her own by preparing Bidis. 14. Difficulty and/or inconvenience in maintaining oneself cannot be construed to mean the same thing as inability to maintain oneself and particularly in the circumstances of the present case where the wife has a definite income of her own by preparing Bidis. 14. In view of the discussion above it is clear that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly disallowed the petition for maintenance in the absence of proof that the wife was unable to maintain herself and has rightly set aside the order dated 7th March 1980 to the contrary passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Pint Class, Raghogarh awarding Rs. 75/- per month as the maintenance allowance to the wife. 15. The result is that this revision filed by the wife fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed