Revision petitioner is the wife of the respondent. She filed a petition under section 125 CrPC claiming maintenance for herself and her two minor daughters alleging that she was married 16 years previously and was beaten and thrown out by her husband. He has 50 bighas of land and two ponds: of fish and has taken a second wife. The claim was resisted by the husband.Learned Magistrate awarded maintenance to each off the children Rs30/- PM from the date of the order, but denied maintenance to the wife on the ground that she was not able to prove that she was unable to maintain herself. Revision filed by her having, been dismissed, she has moved this Court under section 482 of the CrPC. 2. Article 39 of the Constitution states, inrer-alia that the State shall in particular direct its policy towards securing that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to adequate, means to livelihood, the children are given opportunity and facilities, to, develop in a healthy manner and in .condition of freedom.and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and -against moral abandonment. Even without this constitutional right, section 488, Code of Criminal procedure,1894.contained a provision more or less similar in nature, thought narrower in content, to section 125 of the, Code. The provision is a measure of social justice and public policy specially enacted to protect women and children See Bai Tahira vs. Ali Hussain Faisa All ( AIR 1979 SC 362 ) and Jagir kour VS Jaswant Singh. ( AIR 1963 SC 1521 ). The responsibility of the state is sought to be distributed among citizens who have means to maintain their destitute wife, children and parents. As.indicated by the Supreme Court Ramesh Chander vs. Veena Koushal ( AIR 1978 SC 1807 ), the brooding presence of-the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance Viewed in this persctive petition under section 125 of the Code, cannot be construed strictly but has to be interpreted liberally. In appropriate.cases to the very fact that a person has filed a petition under section 125 (1) of the Code would suffice to show that she has a case of inability to maintain herself and of neglect on refuel on the part of the opposite party to maintain her. In appropriate.cases to the very fact that a person has filed a petition under section 125 (1) of the Code would suffice to show that she has a case of inability to maintain herself and of neglect on refuel on the part of the opposite party to maintain her. In all cases it would be necessary to look into averments in the written statement also, 3, There may be a claim petition without any specie averment that the claimant is unable to maintain herself or that she has been neglected. The written statement may allege that the claimant has been no to maintain herself or that there has been no neglect. In such case, the Court will necessary expect the parties to adduce evidence and arrive at a finding. Written statement may not contain averment that the petitioner is able to maintain herself or that she has not been neglected. In either case it will be appropriate for the Court to interpret the petition liberally and imply the necessary averment in the petition, from the very fact of filing of the petition. If the written statement does not contain an assertion of petitioner's ability to maintain herself or denial of her neglect, the Court may hold this aspect to be not in issue. 4. The claim petition in the present case does not contain a specific averment that the petitioner-claimant is unable to maintain herself. Written statement does not contain an averment that the petitioner has her own income. The claimant gave evidence that she has no income. She was not cross-examined on this behalf. The opposite party did not give evidence in this behalf The learned Magistrate was therefore in serious error In declining the claim made by her. 5. The admitted facts are that the spouses are residing separately and the husband has taken a second wife. There is sufficient evidence to show that the husband sent her to her parental house. He has offered to take her back. This offer has to be considered in the light of the fact that he is living with another woman. The offer is not bonafide. No woman is expected to share her husband in the company of another woman. There is sufficient evidence to show that the husband sent her to her parental house. He has offered to take her back. This offer has to be considered in the light of the fact that he is living with another woman. The offer is not bonafide. No woman is expected to share her husband in the company of another woman. If a woman refuses to live with her husband who is living with his, second wife, it cannot be said that she has no just ground to refuse to live with him. this is clear from tbe explanation to sub-section (3X of section 125 of the CrPC. In tbis circumstances, it has to be held that revision petitioner is entitled to maintenance from her husband, Having regard to the means of her husband, I fix Rs. 75/- PM as maintenance pay able.by him to the claimant from 7.5.83, the date on which learned Magistrate passed the order. 6. In the result in modification of the order passed by the Courts below, I direct respondent to pay maintenance Rs. 75/- PM to the revision petitioner from the date of 7.5.83. Revision petition is thus allowed.