B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) PANNABEN Ramanlal Soni wife of Jitendrakumar Chimanlal Soni has filed Cri. Revision Application No. 296/90 and Jitendrakumar Chimanlal Soni husband has filed Cri. Revision Application No. 386 against the judgment and order dated 30 passed by the learned J. M. F. C. Kalol in Maintenance Application which is filed by the wife Pannaben Ramanlal Soni being Cri. Misc. Application No. 46/90. Pannaben has prayed to award Rs. 500. 00 in her revision application instead of Rs. 140. 00 per month awarded by the learned Magistrate and Jitendrakumar Chimanlal Soni has prayed that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate awarding Rs. 140. 00 per month be quashed and set aside. ( 2 ) THE learned Magistrate found that the opponent-husband has made false allegations against the character of the applicant-wife and he has not led any evidence in support of those allegations. Not only that he himself has admitted in his cross-examination that he had never seen the applicant living with Govindram. Therefore according to the learned Magistrate it was a mental cruelly to the applicant-wife and therefore it would be a just ground for the wife to slay way from her husband. The learned Magistrate has disbelieved the defence of the opponent-husband that on account of the relations with Govindram the opponent-husband has given divorce to the applicant-wife for which Rs. 10 0 cash ornaments clothes etc. were given to the wife in the presence of her. However the learned Magistrate has also found that if decree of divorce is executable then the marriage between the spouses has not remained in existence therefore there is no question of applicant-wife to go to her opponents house and stay with him. Therefore even if the case regarding mental or physical cruelly is not believable even then now there is no question of the applicant to go and stay at the opponents house therefore the applicant-wife is entitled for the maintenance. ( 3 ) MR. Sheth L. A. for the husband in Cr. Revn. Application No. 386/90 was unable to show any ground for interference with the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Magistrate who has fully appreciating the evidence on record led by the respective parties awarded maintenance to the wife. Mr. ( 3 ) MR. Sheth L. A. for the husband in Cr. Revn. Application No. 386/90 was unable to show any ground for interference with the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Magistrate who has fully appreciating the evidence on record led by the respective parties awarded maintenance to the wife. Mr. Sheth L. A. for the husband tried to take me through the evidence of the witnesses however being Revision Application this Cowl will not exercise its revisional jurisdiction and reappreciate the evidence on record. It cannot be said that the learned Magistrate while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses has committed any material irregularity either of facts or of law which calls for the interference by the hands of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. ( 4 ) THERE is reliable evidence of the applicantwile to the effect that she was physically and mentally harassed and tortured by her husband on account of demand of dowry and ultimately she had to file a complaint against her husband u/s. 498-A 306 511 and 114 I. P. C. and other four persons before the learned J. M. F. C. Kalol. And once any person makes such a serious allegation regarding the character of his wife then no such wife would like to stay with her husband and she would be fully justified in staying separately from her husband and the learned Magistrate has rightly held that such allegation by itself would amount to mental cruelly and therefore there is no question of going to her husband and the wife would be entitled to slay separately from her husband and claim maintenance. The learned Magistrate was also justified in holding that the wife is entitled for maintenance on the ground that even for there is a divorce decree in existence then as a divorcee wife also she is entitled to maintenance. Therefore the view taken by the learned Magistrate that the applicant-wife is entitled to maintenance is required to be confirmed which is hereby confirmed. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY Cri. Revn. Application 386/ 90 filed by the petitioner-husband-Jitendrakumar Chimanlal Soni is required to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected. ( 6 ) ONCE it is hold that the applicant-wife is entitled to maintenance then the next question would be what amount per month should be awarded to the applicant-wife towards her maintenance? ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY Cri. Revn. Application 386/ 90 filed by the petitioner-husband-Jitendrakumar Chimanlal Soni is required to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected. ( 6 ) ONCE it is hold that the applicant-wife is entitled to maintenance then the next question would be what amount per month should be awarded to the applicant-wife towards her maintenance? Whether she is entitled for the amount of Rs. 500 p. m. towards her maintenance as claimed by her in her maintenance application or she is entitled to Rs. 140. 00 only p. m. as awarded by the learned Magistrate? while fixing the quantum of maintenance to the applicant-wife the learned Magistrate has relied upon the evidence of the applicant-wife that when she was staying with the opponent during the period of 3 years she was serving at Rs. 360. 00 p. m. in N. K. Plastic factory at the say of the opponent and therefore the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the applicant-wife is able to maintain herself and maximum amount of Rs. 500 p. m. can be awarded towards her maintenance and therefore he has awarded Rs. 140. 00 p. m. to the applicant- wife. Thus the approach of the learned Magistrate in awarding only Rs. 140. 00 p. m. towards her maintenance is wholly wrong and illegal. Because first of all the wile has only sealed that when show as slaying with the opponent-husband during the period of 3 years she was serving in N. K. Plastic Factory at the say of her husband and she was getting Rs. 360. 00 p. m. It is to be noted that her husband was a Spinning Supervisor in G. I. D. C. Shri Ram Textile and therefore she court have got that service. However she has clearly stated in her evidence that after she had come to slay with her father she is not doing anything. And in fact the learned Magistrate himself has found that when there is such evidence of the wife that she is not serving than the burden is on the opponent-husband to prove that she is serving or not. In fact there was no evidence led by the husband to show that she is in fact earning. And in fact the learned Magistrate himself has found that when there is such evidence of the wife that she is not serving than the burden is on the opponent-husband to prove that she is serving or not. In fact there was no evidence led by the husband to show that she is in fact earning. Therefore merely because in the past when she was slaying as wife of the opponent-husband and therefore she was able to get a job of Rs. 360. 00 p. m. that does not mean that she will get that job of Rs. 360. 00 p. m. at any place if she is driven on by her husband. Therefore for once upon a time she was able to earn a sum of Rs. 360. 00 p. m. that amount can never he considered while fixing the amount of maintenance to be paid to the wife. In this case there is clear finding arrived at by he learned Magistrate that the opponent-husband is earning Rs. 2000. 00 and he has no other liability and therefore the income of the husband should be equally distributed amongst the husband and wife. However unfortunately as stated above the learned Magistrate has misdirected himself in taking into consideration the amount of Rs. 360/ - p. m. which the applicant wife was earning once upon a time when she was staying with the opponent as his wife. As according to the learned Magistrate the wile is only entitled to Rs. 500. 00 p. m. towards her maintenance he added Rs. 140. 00 more in Rs. 360. 00 and satisfied himself that the wife is awarded Rs. 500. 00 p. m. as maintenance. Though at present the wife is unable to earn anything the learned Magistrate ought to have awarded Rs. 500. 00 towards her maintenance as claimed by the applicant-wife and ought to have further directed the opponent- husband to pay the same from the date of the application. Therefore on the point of quantum the order passed by the learned Magistrate is required to be modified. Apart from-the fact there is no evidence to the effect that the wife is earning Rs. 360. 00 p. m. However even if she was earning Rs. 360. 00 p. m. then also it cannot be said that this amount will be sufficient for her maintenance. Apart from-the fact there is no evidence to the effect that the wife is earning Rs. 360. 00 p. m. However even if she was earning Rs. 360. 00 p. m. then also it cannot be said that this amount will be sufficient for her maintenance. ( 7 ) IF the wife is driven out by her husband then for her survival even if she is doing some work and she is getting some amount out of the same then it cannot be said that she is able to maintain herself. If a woman is doing some labour work by going in some factory and earning some amount it would be a forced labour by which it cannot be said that she is able to maintain herself. If such a narrow meaning to the words able to maintain herself is given then it would be pleaded by the husband that his young wife may sell her body in order to maintain herself and if she is a middle aged or old lady it may be said that she can beg and maintain herself. Then almost in no case the husband would be saddled with the liability of paying maintenance. Therefore such a view is not possible to be taken. In my opinion if a woman is engaged herself in any profession business or service and even after her desertion she continues in her profession business or service and continues to have sufficient means to maintain herself only such wife can be said to be able to maintain herself. Any other married wife who is neglected or refused or deserted by her husband would be said to be a wife unable to maintain herself even though subsequently after her desertion for her survival in this world she is engaged in some labour work and earning something out of it such wife would be certainly said to be a wife unable to maintain herself. Because as a husband after the marriage it is the pious and bounden duty of every husband to maintain his wife. Normally after the marriage the wife is not required to do any work except household work if the husband drives her out then the husband has to pay maintenance to his wife. One cannot forget the fact that the object behind the provisions of Section 125 Cr. Normally after the marriage the wife is not required to do any work except household work if the husband drives her out then the husband has to pay maintenance to his wife. One cannot forget the fact that the object behind the provisions of Section 125 Cr. I. P. C. is mainly to prevent vagrancy of the destituted wife. Therefore even if the wife is earning Rs. 360. 00 p. m. or once upon time she was earning Rs. 360. 00 it can never be said that she is able to maintain herself. Therefore said approach of the learned Magistrate in considering Rs. 360. 00 p. m. as aforesaid as the income of the wife is wholly unsustainable. ( 8 ) THEREFORE the next question is what should be the amount of maintenance which should be awarded to the wife. Admittedly the learned Magistrate has found that the income of the husband is about Rs. 2000 per month and he has no other liability to maintain and therefore his income should be equally divided between him and his wife. In view of this finding when the wife has claimed Rs. 500 p. m. towards her maintenance from her husband then she should have been awarded Rs. 500 p. m. from her husband from the date of the application. Unfortunately as stated earlier the learned Magistrate has committed a material illegality and misdirected himself in considering the amount of Rs. 360. 00 which was her past income for the purpose of awarding maintenance and such amount ought not and could not have been considered while fixing the amount of maintenance. Accordingly il is held that the petitioner wife is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 500. 00 p. m. from her husband from the date of the application which she has claimed before the learned Magistrate. ( 9 ) IN view of the above discussion Criminal Revision Application No. 296/90 filed by the petitioner-wife is allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate Kalol awarding maintenance to the petitioner-wife at the rate of Rs. 140. 00 p. m. from the date of the application i. e. from 1-3-90 is modified to Rs. 500 p. m. from the date of the application i. e. 1 Rule made absolute. 9 Criminal Revision Application No. 386/ 90 filed by the respondent-husband is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. (NVA) Rule discharged. .