VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) ). The two questions, quite important and interesting too, raised by the petitioner-husband challenging the very spirit and the maintainability of the maintenance proceedings under Sec. 125 of the Criminal Procedure code, 1973 (for short Code) initiated against him by an illegally driven away respondent wife, which this Court is incidentally called upon to interprete and decide are - (i) "whether merely because any wife who is deaf and dumb and because of her said handicapped condition is incapable of making any statement on oath before the Court, can it be said to be legally incompetent to invoke and initiate the beneficial maintenance proceedings under Sec. 125 of the Code in her as well as in her minor childs favour"?; and (ii)"whether any married person who is physically handicapped because of his deafness and dumbness and further financially handicapped as being without any independent personal source of income or any other movable or immovable property and thereby totally dependent and a liability on the family with which he resides, can be said to be a parson having sufficient means within the meaning of Sec. 125 of the Code to be saddled with the liability to pay maintenance to his deserted wife and minor child"? ( 2 ) ). In order to appreciate and interprete the aforesaid two questions in proper perspective, it is necessary first of all to have a brief look at the grass-root facts and circumstances of the case leading to the present petition. The petitioner-Shaileshkumar Doshi of Wankaner and respondent-Dinaben of rajkot, were married at Rajkot, on 10-3-1989. Incidentally, both of them are deaf and dumb. According to the petitioner, he took education at Deaf and dumb School at Bhavnagar and Rajkot, while the respondent-though she knew how to read and write, was unable to speak, After their marriage, both petitioner and the respondent were living quite happily at Wankaner and had got a son nilesh who is aged about an year. It is alleged by the petitioner that after the birth of their son, disturbance started in their matrimonial life, as respondent hardly came for a month to Wankaner to reside with him and on the contrary she continuously went on insisting that he (petitioner) also should stay with her at Rajkot. It is alleged by the petitioner that after the birth of their son, disturbance started in their matrimonial life, as respondent hardly came for a month to Wankaner to reside with him and on the contrary she continuously went on insisting that he (petitioner) also should stay with her at Rajkot. According to the petitioner, he as such was quite ready and willing to stay at Rajkot, but the same practically was not feasible on account of his handicapped condition as there was no possibility of his getting any job at Rajkot. This intransigent attitude between the spouces ultimately divided and drifted them away in different directions making their staying together impossible. As against this, say of the petitioner, it is the case of the respondent that she was daily taunted, beaten and harassed at her in-laws house at Wankaner, so much so that once even attempt on her life was made when kerosene was sprinkled over her but was ultimately saved because of intervention by neighbours. According to the respondent, she tolerated this short of harass ments for quite some time. However, on 1-12-1990, the petitioner and his mother severely beat her and thereafter the petitioner took her to Rajkot and leaving her alone at bus-station, returned to Wankaner. It was since that day thereafter that she was compelled to reside at her parental home at Rajkot. According to the respondent, the petitioners father was a leading businessman in the town dealing in retail as well as wholesale business of jaggery and was also having immovable property. According to the respondent, it was under the above circumstances that the petitioner having driven her away and refused to maintain her, that on 4-12-1990 she filed an application for maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code, the some being misc. Criminal Application No. 1654 of 1990 pending on the file of the learned jmfc Rajkot, Inter alia praying for the maintenance of her minor son Nilesh and herself to the tune of Rs. 500. 00. 2. 1 The aforesaid application by the respondent came to be opposed by the petitioner vide his reply dated 8-2-1991 at Ex. 8. Not only that but the petitioner thereafter submitted one more application Ex. 500. 00. 2. 1 The aforesaid application by the respondent came to be opposed by the petitioner vide his reply dated 8-2-1991 at Ex. 8. Not only that but the petitioner thereafter submitted one more application Ex. 9 challenging the very maintainability of the maintenance proceedings initiated under Sec. 125 of the code against him by the respondent, inter alia praying for deciding the said issue as a preliminary issue first on the following main amongst other grounds (i) That the applicant-wife (respondent-herein) who is deaf and dumb and her minor son also being incapable of making any statement on oath before the Court, they being incompetent, their application for maintenance was not legally maintainable. (ii) That for invoking the provisions contained in Sec. 125 of the Code, the condition precedent for the said purpose, viz. , "if any person having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to maintain" was required to be first satisfied. Now this most material and fundamental ingredient of the said Sec. 125 of the Code in the facts and circumstances of the case was patently absent, as according to the petitioner he being deaf and dumb and was not having independent personal ; source of income. Not only that, but he being handicapped nobody was prepared to provide him a job. Further the petitioner had neither any movable nor immovable properties and that in fact he was being maintained by his parents and therefore was utterly dependent and liability upon the family. In this view of the matter, since he did not have any "sufficient means" he could not be legally saddled with the maintenance liability under Sec. 125 of the code. 2. 2. The aforesaid application filed by the petitioner, came to be opposed by the respondent, and the learned Magistrate after hearing the parties, by judgment and order dated 4-7-1991, ultimately rejected the same and ordered for expsditious proceeding of the case. It is this impugned order which is brought under challenge by the petitioner before this Court in these proceedings. ( 3 ) ). Mr. R. K. Shah, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner pressing hard for quashing and setting aside the pending maintenance proceedings initiated by the respondent has relied upon and urged the very same contentions (reproduced in para 2. 1 above of this judgment) which had been specifically raised by his counter-part before the learned Magistrate. Mr. Mr. R. K. Shah, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner pressing hard for quashing and setting aside the pending maintenance proceedings initiated by the respondent has relied upon and urged the very same contentions (reproduced in para 2. 1 above of this judgment) which had been specifically raised by his counter-part before the learned Magistrate. Mr. Shah on the basis of the aforesaid contentions submitted that examining the case from the angle of the petitioner, since he cannot be said to have "sufficient means he cannot be saddled with the liability of maintenance of his wife and minor son. In the same way, if it is examined from the point of view of incapability of the respondent who due to her handicapped condition was unable to make any statement on oath, before the Court, she could not have moved for maintenance proceedings. Thus, examining the facts and circumstances of the case from any of the angels, perspectives as submitted above, there do not exist even the elementary basis on the basis of which the maintenance proceedings under Sec. 125 of the Code could ever be initiated. Mr. Shah finally urged that this application, taking into consideration the important question of law involved in the case, be comitted for a just decision of this court. ( 4 ) ). Now having heard Mr. Shah at length and carefully considered each of the contentions raised by him, it may be stated that none of them have even a semblance of substance and hence deserve to be summarily rejected. To be frank enough, the aforesaid contentions, apart from being quite amazing illegal, unjust and harsh are queer and indeed a cruel joke on the right of maintenance of deaf and dumb wife like the respondent. In fact, there is nothing in the wordings of Sec. 125 of the Code which suggest that the handicapped wives who are deaf and dumb are not entitled to maintenance in the event of they being neglected or refused to be maintained by their husbands. Rather, once the material. ingredients of Sec. 125 of the Code, viz. In fact, there is nothing in the wordings of Sec. 125 of the Code which suggest that the handicapped wives who are deaf and dumb are not entitled to maintenance in the event of they being neglected or refused to be maintained by their husbands. Rather, once the material. ingredients of Sec. 125 of the Code, viz. , that any women who claims and is found to be a wife, is refused or neglected to be maintained by her husband without any justifiable ground, then in that case, the obvious consequences of the same is that such a deserted wife is entitled to file the maintenance proceedings and claim maintenance allowance and: if that is so, nothing could prevent her to move the Court seeking instant* aneous relief by way of maintenance and interim maintenance from her husband. In a given case like the present one, if the wife is deaf and dumb, then also she cannot be denied her vested right of maintenance on the ground of being physically handicapped and incapable of making a statement on oath. In such cases, any relative and the best friend of such neglected wife can on her behalf move the Court and pray for the enforcement of her vested legal right of maintenance. Merely because the wife is incapable of making any statement on oath before the Court that cannot by itself bebar her from claiming and enforcing her legal right under sec. 125 of the Code. What is material to be considered in such cases ishas the derelicted wife any right of any maintenance under Sec. 125 of the code or not ? If the answer is yes, then such an important legal right cannot be permitted to be set at naught and divested on some technical pleas like the one taken in the present case. Apart from this, when the Courts are called upon to interprete any legal provisions pertaining to any cause of social justice, the same unquestionably needs to be viewed and interpreted in no other manner save and except the one that promotes its ultimate object. Thus, the view this Court is taking in this case is duly supported by the decision of the supreme Court in the case of Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Thus, the view this Court is taking in this case is duly supported by the decision of the supreme Court in the case of Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena anand, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1807 , wherein in para-9 of its judgment, it has been observed as under :"9. The provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Art. 15 (3) reinforced by Art. 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not certified print but Vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional sympathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advances the cause of the derelicts. " ( 5 ) ). Now reverting to the facts of the instant case, it is undisputed fact that the respondent is a lawfully married wife of the petitioner and that minor nilesh is a son born out of the said wedlock. Further at this stage, equally it cannot be disputed either that the maintenance application filed by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner has neglected or refused to maintain her, does not exist as it is a matter of evidence, yet to be lead and proved. Under such circumstances, how indeed can it be said by any stretch of imagination that the respondent has no locus standi to file an application under sec. 125 of the Code? In fact, to accept the said submission of the petitioner is to accept the position that once any wife is found to be deaf and dumb, she has no right to survive and live in this world. Such an absurd proposition has no place in the humanitarian jurisprudence underlying Sec. 125 of the code. It further appears that sum and substance of arguments of Mr. Shah is that the respondent being deaf and dumb and thus being incapable of making any statement on oath or to give proper instructions, such an application could not have been filed. Such an absurd proposition has no place in the humanitarian jurisprudence underlying Sec. 125 of the code. It further appears that sum and substance of arguments of Mr. Shah is that the respondent being deaf and dumb and thus being incapable of making any statement on oath or to give proper instructions, such an application could not have been filed. Now this contention has no substance for the simple reason that such handicapped women are not totally helpless in conveying, their feelings, grievances by way of some gestures etc. to others. Not only that, but the family members and other relatives staying with such women like the respondent, know the background under which she has left her matrimonial home and came to stay with her parents. Assuming for the sake of arguments that what is stated by Mr. Shah is correct and that she is really incapable of making any statement on oath, this Court is not prepared to accept the position that the parents and other relatives of such deserted handicapped wife who had a misfortune to receive their unfortunate dishonoured daughters back to their houses had no right or authority whatsoever to move the Court to help her out by taking appropriate legal steps on her behalf for enforcement of her statutory rights. For enforcement of such an eventful provision of the social justice under Sec. 125 of the Code to insist upon a technicality of statement on oath of any deaf and dumb person such as the present respondent as a condition precedent is not only asking for sheer impossibility, but is a surest way of throttling the substantive right of maintenance - justice by the rope of (technicality) procedural law. In fact, to accept such contention would be both violance on the common sense and the cause of justice for which Sec. 125 of the Code came to be enacted. In this view of the matter, the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be rejected and is rejected accordingly. ( 6 ) ). Now coming to the next contention of Mr. In this view of the matter, the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be rejected and is rejected accordingly. ( 6 ) ). Now coming to the next contention of Mr. Shah, namely "that the petitioner being physically and financially handicapped and therefore a liability on his family, he cannot be said to be a person having sufficient means within the meaning of Sec. 125 of the Code and therefore cannot be legally saddled with the maintenance liability" - it may be stated that the same is also being devoid of any merits does not click at all. The simple reason for this is if a handicapped persons like the petitioner was quite able to manage to maintain his wife at his home, how can it ever be supposed that he had no funds to maintain her wife when she is forced to reside separately. It is true that if the respondent resided at her matrimonial home, then there will not be much additional expenses for her maintenance and that she could be maintained out of the general maintenance expenses of the family. When all the family members reside and dine together under one roof, the same is comparatively quite economical except spending some amount on the individual clothings. But the fact remains that even when the wife resided alongwith the family members, the family had to spend at least some little amount on her and her minor son on food and clothings. The only thing would be the total overall expenses would be comparatively little less. Under such circumstances, if family can spend extra amount on wife and minor son when they were residing together, the same family can certainly spare certain amount for the maintenance if because of the alleged cruelty of the husband and of other family members, she has been forced to leave her matrimonial home and compelled to reside at her parental home. The amount which was being spent when she was at home can certainly be channelised (with little more amount) and thereby provided by awarding the same to her while living separately. This is one way of looking at the situation and doing the needful. There cannot be any doubt about this. The amount which was being spent when she was at home can certainly be channelised (with little more amount) and thereby provided by awarding the same to her while living separately. This is one way of looking at the situation and doing the needful. There cannot be any doubt about this. But apart from this, if in such types of cases, when parents of such deaf and dumb sons are anxious, eager, enthusiastic and keen and in short crazy to see that their handicapped sons get married, not only married, but marry with deaf and dumb daughters of others, further permitting them to add a liability by way of a child, despite knowing full well that both the husband and the wife are physically and financially handicapped and were therefore pare, simple and absolute liability upon them, they are supposed to have taken a calculated risk of the hazards of such marriages. All such parents under such circumstances are deemed to have taken a calculated risk covering the marriage risk of the dependant son also, viz. , that in the event of their sons and daughter-in-laws falling apart, the liability which under the law the son has to bear and share, will have to be borne and shared by them. Such parents when they arrange for such marriages of their handicapped and dependant sons, they must be deemed to have entered into a liability undertaking and insuring the marriage risk on behalf of their son of providing maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code to the incoming daughter-in-laws. In this view of the above discussion merely because a person is physically and financially handicapped, he cannot be permitted to urge that he is not having sufficient means to defy his legal obligation under Sec. 125 of the Code. Infact, taking into consideration the above discussion, the petitioner is deemed to have the sufficient means by virtue of an unwritten, but at the same time unquestionable implied insurance and guarantee granted by the parents to their incoming daughter-in-laws, covering the risk of marriage in the case of allegation of neglect or refusal to maintain her. Not to take this view is to refuse to do justice to helpless handicapped needy wife and shut eyes at the realities of life. ( 7 ) ). At this stage, Mr. Not to take this view is to refuse to do justice to helpless handicapped needy wife and shut eyes at the realities of life. ( 7 ) ). At this stage, Mr. Shah requested this Court to permit him to withdraw this application which requires to be rejected taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above. ( 8 ) ). Mr. Shah, despite the above view already taken by this Court. quite surprisingly hopefully persisted in submitting that it would be simply too harsh and unjust for the petitioner to bear the liability of maintenance in question in view of the fact that at present, he was unemployed. Mr. Shah further submitted that despite the best of efforts, the petitioner has not been able to get suitable employment anywhere. Now of course, there is neither anything on the record of this case to substantiate the aforesaid submission, nor has it any relevance or bearing with the finding already arrived at as above, still however taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court on humanitarian ground feels it necessary to appeal to some such social organisations/institutions or the state Government which may look into the matter, if possible, and provide some job to the petitioner and also to the respondent, which may. give them honourable existence. On making necessary inquiries with the members of the Bar present in the Court room regarding such social organisations/intuitions which can help present handicapped spouses by extending their hands of co-operation, Mr. N. D. Nanavati and Mr. A. D. Shah, the learned Advocates of this Court have named the following three: (1) Director, Social Welfare Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar; (2) Director, Social Welfare Defence, Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad. (3) Institute for Deaf and Dumb, Ahmedabad. Under the circumstances any of the present handicapped spouses if they are desirous enough to get employment, they may do so, by approaching any of the aforesaid institutions/offices etc. It is hoped that as and when any of the spouses so approaches said organisations/offices etc. their case for the employment will be sympathetically considered. This rare appeal by this Court to various organisations has been made as a special case on a humanitarian ground - the idea being to help the young handicapped couple to have honourable living in the society, if possible. If this is possible, well and good. their case for the employment will be sympathetically considered. This rare appeal by this Court to various organisations has been made as a special case on a humanitarian ground - the idea being to help the young handicapped couple to have honourable living in the society, if possible. If this is possible, well and good. Otherwise, it is clarified that getting of the job by the petitioner and the respondent has nothing to do with the ultimate duty of the petitioner in this case to give maintenance allowance to the respondent and her minor son every month, if ultimately he is found by the trial Court to have refused or neglected to maintain them. ( 9 ) ). In the result, this application fails and is summarily dismissed. The learned Magistrate is directed to expedite the interim application given by the respondent-wife at its earliest best. The Registrar of this Court is directed to forward a copy of this judgment with a forwarding letter impressing upon the aforesaid organisations and institutions, the concern and anxiety of this Court and appeal to them on the humanitarian ground for needful to be done in the matter. .