G. B. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application filed by the wife against her husband for maintenance, her application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure having been rejected by the learned Magistrate. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed an application before the Magistrate on the allegation that her husband (opposite party) ill-treated her and neglected to maintain her after eight years of their married life. This happened since her husband came in contact with bad companion to which the petitioner objected. According to the petitioner, the salary of opposite party is Rs. 350. 00 per month and, therefore, she claimed at the rate of Rs. 150. 00 per month. ( 3 ) BEFORE the learned Magistrate, the petitioner examined 3 witnesses, but the opposite party did not examine any witness. Out of the three witnesses, petitioner herself has been examined, her father has been examined and one neighbour has also been examined. On discussion of the evidence, the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that there is no reason for the petitioner to leave the company of her husband and there being no proof of ill-treatment, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed by her. ( 4 ) THERE is no appearance for the husband-opposite party in this Court. Mr. Sahu appearing for the petitioner contends that the learned Magistrate did not appreciate the evidence adduced in the case in the true perspective and rejected the application of the petitioner even though the requirements of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been fully satisfied. There is no dispute that section 125 of the Code is the provision which only gives effect to the natural duty of a man to maintain his wife and is essentially a speedier remedy available against starvation to be disposed or in a summary manner. As Sir, James Fits James Stephen describes, it is a mode of preventing vagrancy or at least of preventing its consequences and it is with this object, section 125 has been engrafted in the Criminal Procedure Code. The requirements of the section are, the applicant must be the wife of the opposite party unable to maintain herself and the opposite party having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain. The requirements of the section are, the applicant must be the wife of the opposite party unable to maintain herself and the opposite party having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain. If the evidence adduced in the case is examined from the aforesaid standpoint, in my opinion, the requirements of section 125 are fully satisfied. From the evidence of the petitioner as well as her father and also the evidence of the neighbour, it is crystal clear that the opposite party has sufficient means and he has neglected to maintain the wife. There is no denial that petitioner and opposite party are the wife and the husband respectively. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the learned Magistrate committed an error in refusing the application of the petitioner for grant of maintenance. ( 5 ) COMING to the quantum, the petitioners evidence is to the effect that the husband has a monthly income of Rs. 350. 00. From the evidence of the petitioner, it appears that the opposite party works as a peon. There is no denial to the aforesaid assertions of the petitioner. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, I am of the opinion that a sum of Rupees One hundred (Rs. 100. 00) would be the appropriate monthly maintenance to be awarded to the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to this sum with effect from the date of the application filed by her under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 6 ) IN the result, therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate is set aside and it is directed that the petitioner is entitled to receive rupees One hundred per month as maintenance from the opposite party with effect from the date of her application filed before the Magistrate. This Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed. Revision allowed. .