JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.4.1995 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur, whereby the application of the petitioner applicant for maintenance Under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code was dismissed. 2. I have heard the arguments of both the sides. 3. The petitioner (wife) and the non-petitioner (husband) were married 4 years before the filing of application Under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. In the first year of the marriage every thing went on well Thereafter the husband used to beat the wife and two years after the marriage the husband turned out the wife from his house after beating her. The wife went to her father's place where she has been residing. Thereafter the husband had taken another woman as his wife. Thereupon the original wife i.e. the petitioner moved an application Under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code for the maintenance against her husband non-petitioner in the Family Court. The Family Court took the evidence of both the sides. Upon considering the evidence of both the sides and hearing the arguments advanced by both the sides the learned Family Court vide its impugned judgment and order came to the conclusion that the wife petitioner has come to her father's house on her own accord and refused to go with her husband in spite of the persuasion and, therefore, she was not justified to claim the maintenance from her husband and consequently her application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code was dismissed. 4. From the evidence given by the petitioner as AW 1 it is quite evident that after the one year of the marriage the husband non-petitioner used to beat his wife the petitioner. Her father Harji as AW 2 has also deposed that the non-petitioner used to beat his (AW 2) daughter. It seems that a caste panchayat was convened to resolve the dispute between the parties. Although the dispute could not be resolved, but the proceedings of the panchayat were reduced in writing, which is Ex. 1-A perusal of Ex. 1 would show that there is a mention of the allegation that the non-petitioner husband used to beat his wife the petitioner. On the other hand the non-petitioner in his statement as N.A. W. 1 has denied that he used to beat the petitioner. 1-A perusal of Ex. 1 would show that there is a mention of the allegation that the non-petitioner husband used to beat his wife the petitioner. On the other hand the non-petitioner in his statement as N.A. W. 1 has denied that he used to beat the petitioner. He has admitted that his wife the petitioner went away to her father's house and when she did not return he has taken another woman as the second wife, of course without taking the divorce. The nonpetitioner has examined 3 witnesses to support his version. Upon the consideration of the entire evidence produced by both the sides and taking into account the preponderance of probability I find that it is sufficiently established that the husband non-petitioner used to beat his wife the petitioner and consequently she was compelled to leave the house of her husband and came to the house of her father. When a wife is beaten by her husband she is justified to go to her father's house. It is an admitted fact that thereafter the non-petitioner has taken another woman as his wife and, therefore, the wife petitioner is fully justified not to go back to the house of her husband when he has taken another woman as his wife. 5. In Mannava Satyawati & Ors. v. Mannava Malleswara Rao & Ors., reported in 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 836 , it has been held by the Supreme Court that that because the wife and the children had left the house of their own accord is no ground to disentitle them to maintenance. 6. Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code is the measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect the women and children and fall within the constitutional sweep of Art. 15(3) reinforced by Art. 39 of the Constitution. Section 125 is meant to achieve a social purpose. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It is a measure of social justice intended to protect the women and children. In my opinion where none of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code has been established by the husband, the Court is bound to award maintenance in favour of the wife on a proper application made by her. It is a measure of social justice intended to protect the women and children. In my opinion where none of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code has been established by the husband, the Court is bound to award maintenance in favour of the wife on a proper application made by her. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the instant case and the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the learned Family Court committed an error in rejecting the application Under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code of the wife petitioner and the judgment and order of the learned Family Court is not sustainable. However the matter is required to be remanded back to the Family Court for determining the quantum of maintenance and the mode of payment. 7. In the result the revision petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 27.4.1995 of the learned Family Court is set aside. It is held that the petitioner wife is entitled to the maintenance by her husband the non-petitioner. The matter is remanded back to the learned Family Court for passing appropriate order according to law for determining the quantum of maintenance and the mode of payment. The parties are directed to appear in the Family Court on 8.7.1996. There shall be no order as to costs.Revision Petition Allowed. *******