JUDGMENT - Waikar M.R. J.-This criminal revision filed by the original non-applicant (husband) is directed against the order passed by the learned Magis-trate on the application filed by his wife under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure granting her a maintenance allowance of Rs. 80 per month. 2. The submissions made by Shri Anoop Mohta appearing for the revisionist are two-fold: (1) The non-applicant No. 1, admittedly, is the third wife of this applicant and in the absence of anything to show that his marriage with his first two wives was dissolved by divorce, his marriage with non-applicant No. 1 was a void marriage under section 5(i) read with section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act and as such no maintenance allow- ance could be granted to her under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, and (2) non-applicant No. 1 in her application never alleged that she was unable to maintain herself nor she proved that fact. The learned Magis trate was, therefore, not justified in entertaining such a petition. 3. Shri Mohta placed reliance on the two decisions of this Court reported in (Marolrao v. Chandrakanta1 and Kewaldas v. Kunda)2 in support of his submission that it is absolutely essential for the wife in a petition under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code to make this allegation and then to prove it and for want of such an averment, the application must be dismissed. 4. As regards the first submission, I find that the specific allegation made in para. 1 of the petition by non-applicant No. 1 that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, was not denied in his reply filed by him. It was further alleged by the wife that her husband was always warped by a feeling that his wife was unchaste and on that score he ill-treated her, finally deserted her and neglected to maintain her. Tt was next alleged that his first two wives also suffered as he always suspected their conjugal fidelity to him and, ultimately, they had to obtain divorces. 5. The husband in his reply denied that because he suspected the character of his first two wives, they had to obtain divorce, but it was not his plea that his marriage with any of the first two wives still subsisted and, hence, his third marriage with the original applicant (non-applicant No! 1 here) was void. 5. The husband in his reply denied that because he suspected the character of his first two wives, they had to obtain divorce, but it was not his plea that his marriage with any of the first two wives still subsisted and, hence, his third marriage with the original applicant (non-applicant No! 1 here) was void. Thus, the fact that his earlier two marriages stood dis- solved by divorce was not really denied. What was denied was the alleged circumstances under which, according to the wife, the earlier two wives had to obtain divorces. It is too late in the day, now, for the husband to contend in this revision that his marriage with non-applicant No. 1 is void in view of the provisions of section 5(i) read with section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, because his earlier marriage was still subsisting, when it was never disputed by him that non-applicant No. 1 was his legally wedded wife. This first submission of Shri Mohta is, therefore, devoid of any substance. 6. As regards the second contention, such submissions, it is seen, are often made for the first time in this Court in revisions preferred by the husbands against the orders granting maintenance by the Magistrate in proceedings under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. Sometimes, though there is absence of such an averment in a petition under section 125.. the evidence of the wife that she is unable to maintain herself or that she has no source of income, is never objected to or challenged in the cross-examination. The only attempt made during cross-examination, sometimes,, is to show, not that she is really possessed of any other means of main-tenance but that she is able-bodied and can earn wages. Sometimes, the allegations of the wife in her petition to the effect that on being so deserted by her husband she is being maintained by her father or brother or other relatives, are never disputed which, by necessary implication, in fact, means, an admission of the fact that she has no independent source of income. Sometimes, the allegations of the wife in her petition to the effect that on being so deserted by her husband she is being maintained by her father or brother or other relatives, are never disputed which, by necessary implication, in fact, means, an admission of the fact that she has no independent source of income. No objection is raised during the hearing of the matter or before any of the Courts below as to the very tenability of the application for want of proper pleadings, and the objection is, for the first time, raised in this Court either in revision or in an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Should this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction or inherent powers under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code quash the proceedings merely on such a technical ground that it was not stated in the application that wife was unable to maintain herself, even though the Magistrate at the conclusion of the hearing may have found that she has really no other means to maintain herself and even though the husband never before seemed to have doubted such incapacity of his wife ? The two decisions of this Court {cited supra) no doubt lay down that the pro- ceedings under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code are basically civil in nature and that absence of an allegation that the applicant is unable to maintain herself is always fatal. It further follows that in the absence of any specific and proper plea, no amount of evidence can be looked into. A strict observance of the rules of pleadings, as in a civil suit, is thus insisted upon. 8. However, in (Raibari v. Mangarai)3, the Orissa High Court observ- ed that a failure to mention by the wife in her petition under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code that she is unable to maintain herself is not fatal to the petition, when on review of the contents of the petition and the evidence, it is found that she is unable to maintain herself. In (Aijaz Ahmed v. Smt. Shahjehan Begum)4 again the petitioner had not stated that she was unable to maintain herself but it was stated that her father was maintaining her. In (Aijaz Ahmed v. Smt. Shahjehan Begum)4 again the petitioner had not stated that she was unable to maintain herself but it was stated that her father was maintaining her. It was held by the Allahabad High Court that the mainteriance order passed by the Magistrate could not be quashed on the ground of any defect in the pleadings. 9. In my opinion, no hard and fast rule in dealing with such a matter can be laid down as in the two decisions of this Court. It should always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. This is not to say that the necessary ingredients of section 125 ibid should always be condoned and excused but what is of the essence and which can never he over-looked is the object of this provision. Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, verily, is a measure of social justice. It is meant to provide a speedy and cheap remedy for the maintenance of destitute wives or parents or minor children or such major children who, by reason of physical or mental defect or injury, are unable to maintain themselves and it is direct-ed against persons who neglect or refuse to maintain such persons though possessed of sufficient means. Such a proceeding, in its very nature, there-fore, is a combat, a filibuster between two unequals-between the decrepit and the destitute on one hand and a delinquent on the other who is well off. Keeping in view the object and the purpose of this enactment and the nature of such proceedings, it would be wholly unjust to apply punctiliously or with seve're rigidity the rules of pleadings as in a civil litigation. These proceedings are not basically civil in nature but are akin to civil proceed-ings. Keeping in view the object and the purpose of this enactment and the nature of such proceedings, it would be wholly unjust to apply punctiliously or with seve're rigidity the rules of pleadings as in a civil litigation. These proceedings are not basically civil in nature but are akin to civil proceed-ings. When, in a given case, the fact of inability to maintain, despite its absence in the petition, is so notoriously known to the opponent that all that he has to say, in his reply, is that his wife is able-bodied or is being well looked after by her affluent parents and when throughout the proceed-ings the parties treated this issue as an undisputed one, to throw over-board the proceedings from the summit and to quash them only because the petition did not contain or embody the necessary requirement of the section that he/she is unable to maintain himself/herself, would be to throttle and sacrifice justice in order to adore technicality and form. No Court can be oblivious of the fact that it is always the substance of the matter and not merely the form which must be looked into, and in its anxiety to count trees, it does not miss the wood. 10. In the instant case, however, it is true that the wife in her peti-tion did not use or quote the words of the statute that she “is unable to maintain herself” but there is no law nor the aforesaid two decisions of this Court can be construed to mean that if these exact words of the statute are not reproduced verbatim in the petition but are substituted by some other expression, though conveying the same sense, the application is untenable. What is stated in the present petition is that “she has no independent source of income” which is only another way of saying that she is unable to maintain herself and the petition does not suffer from any such.infirmity as alleged by the learned counsel. I see no force in this submission also of Shri Mohta. 11. I see no reason to interfere with the quantum of the maintenance of Rs. 80 as granted by the learned Magistrate, which is granted after taking into account the total salary of the husband, the facts and circum- stances of the case and also the status of the applicant-husband. 12. In the result, the revision stands dismissed. 11. I see no reason to interfere with the quantum of the maintenance of Rs. 80 as granted by the learned Magistrate, which is granted after taking into account the total salary of the husband, the facts and circum- stances of the case and also the status of the applicant-husband. 12. In the result, the revision stands dismissed. Revision dismissed. ----