JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard Sri P.C. Srivastava learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA and Sri B. K. Tripathi holding brief of Sri S.K. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.4.2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur, in Criminal Case No. 605 of 2002 (Smt. Anjali Singh v. Dharmendra Singh). 3. Smt. Anjali Singh filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. against the respondent No. 2 Dharmendra Singh, in brief, on the grounds that she was married according to the Hindu Customs with Dharmendra Singh on 27.2.2000 and her bidai ceremony took place on 28.2.2000. In her marriage her parents spent about four lacs of rupees in addition to rupees two lacs in Tilak ceremony. After her bidai she went to the house of her husband and started discharging her responsibilities as a wife. After her marriage the economical condition of her parent detoriated as a result of which they could not give the Motor-cycle to her husband as promised by them at the time of the marriage. Because of non­fulfilment of the said demand, revisionist Smt. Anjali Singh was assaulted with lathi, danda, fists and kicks and was subjected to torture for more than three months and ultimately she was turned out from her in-law’s house. The revisionist further stated that she is unable to maintain herself and her parents are in poor condition to maintain her. With the aforesaid allegations she filed the aforesaid application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. and claimed the maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month from her husband respondent No. 2 Dharmendra Singh and Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses. 4. Respondent No. 2 Dharmendra the husband appeared in the case and filed his written statement, wherein he had stated that the revisionist does not have any right to file an application under Section 125, Cr.PC. He stated that neither the demand of dowry was made in the marriage nor demand of motor-cycle was made after the marriage. He further stated that at the time of marriage he was a student and under the pressure of his parents he had entered into the wedlock. He further stated that he had no source of income. He stated that mother of the revisionist was teacher in Government School and the revisionist was also employed in Anganwari. He further stated that at the time of marriage he was a student and under the pressure of his parents he had entered into the wedlock. He further stated that he had no source of income. He stated that mother of the revisionist was teacher in Government School and the revisionist was also employed in Anganwari. He has further stated that the revisionist wanted that he should not live in the village but live in city, which was denied by him and therefore, with mala fide intention, the revisionist his wife, left companionship and filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. on wrong facts. 5. In support of her case the revisionist Anjali Singh, the wife, examined herself as P.W. 1, Kalawati as PW. 2 and Maharaj Singh as P.W. 3. Dharmendra Singh husband examined himself as D.W. 1, Parmanand Pandey as D.W. 2 and Yadunandan Singh as D.W. 3. 6. The trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record, recorded a finding that so far as the income of the respondent husband is concerned, the respondent was the owner of four bighas of land which was separate from the Joint family property, and therefore, he has sufficient source of income but he dismissed the application of the revisionist under Section 125, Cr.P.C. by holding that it is possible that the revisionist could not adjust herself in her in-law’s house. He dismissed the application of the revisionist under Section a 125, Cr..P.C. on the ground that she does not want to live with her husband. He further observed that there is no material on record to indicate that the husband has done any cruelty with the revisionist or that the revisionist has got any reason to live separately from her husband. On these reasons the trial Court has rejected the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. by the revisionist. 7. Sri P.C. Srivastava learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the impugned order dated 18.4.2006 passed by the Principal Judge Family Court is wholly illegal. He further contended that the Principal Judge, Family Court, held that the wife does not have any valid reason to live separately from her husband. The statement of the wife is clear and well established that she was tortured and was beaten in her in-laws house. He further contended that the Principal Judge, Family Court, held that the wife does not have any valid reason to live separately from her husband. The statement of the wife is clear and well established that she was tortured and was beaten in her in-laws house. He further contended that the wife never wanted to live separately and the defence of the husband was wholly absurd. He contended that the impugned order has been passed by the Principal Judge Family Court because he was lingering on the matter since 2004. Revisionist approached this Court through Criminal Misc. Applications No. 132204/04, 5280/05, 1876/06 for expeditious disposal of her application under Section 125, Cr. PC. and in all.those Criminal Misc. Applications orders were passed this Court for expeditious disposal of her application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. on 16.2.2006, 13.11.2004 and 12.5.2005 and that is why Principal Judge Family Court had rejected the claim of maintenance. He has appended the aforesaid orders as Annexures 2, 3 and 6 to the affidavit appended alongwith this revision. He contended that feeling offended by the aforesaid orders, the Principal Judge Family Court hastily, on conjecture and surmises, without proper appreciation of evidences led by the wife, rejected the application of the revisionist under Section 125, Cr.P.C. which order deserves to be set aside and the revision deserves to be allowed. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the respondent does not have any house and in fact he does not have any source of income and therefore, he cannot maintain his wife. He further contended that he wants to keep his wife alongwith him but she is not ready. He further submitted that he had filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was got stayed by the wife by preferring a petition of transfer in this Court therefore the wife does not want to live with her husband and so she is not entitled to maintenance and the impugned order is justified and should be upheld. 9. I have considered the arguments of the rival sides. 10. Some facts are not disputed in this revision. Those are that the revisionist Smt. Anjali Singh and respondent No. 2 Dharmendra Singh are husband and wife. It is also not disputed that their marriage was performed accordingly to the Hindu customs on 27.2.2000. 9. I have considered the arguments of the rival sides. 10. Some facts are not disputed in this revision. Those are that the revisionist Smt. Anjali Singh and respondent No. 2 Dharmendra Singh are husband and wife. It is also not disputed that their marriage was performed accordingly to the Hindu customs on 27.2.2000. It is also not disputed that nothing has been paid as maintenance to the wife by the husband as according to him he is unemployed. It is also not disputed that application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the husband but the same has been stayed by this Court in the transfer petition filed by the wife. However, the trial Judge’s view that the wife may not have adjusted herself on her own reasons is totally conjectural. There was no material with the trial Court for recording such a finding, therefore, the Principal Judge, Family Court went out of the way to record such findings. Section 125, Cr.P.C. should be decided on the evidences led in the case on factual as well as circumstantial aspect of the matter and not on conjecture and surmises. Further the trial Court committed a manifest error in not relying upon the statement of the respondent husband himself that he is an unemployed youth and he is not doing any service. This fact itself was sufficient to hold that the husband is unable to maintain his wife and therefore there is per se neglect and refusal to maintain the wife. The wife is to be maintained by her husband not by any body else. The trial Court should have also taken into consideration that mere pleading to keep the wife is not sufficient. In the present case the trial Court completely overlooked the fact that the husband has not paid any money to the wife since lodging of the case and he had not made any genuine effort to bring her back. The trial Court also ignored that there were allegations of torture and beating as well and therefore the wife had sufficient reasons to live separately. The trial Court has decided the case as if he was deciding a criminal trial of offence and not a quasi­civil proceeding The trial Court also did not considered the fact that after the wife was turned out by her husband she was not cared for by him. The trial Court has decided the case as if he was deciding a criminal trial of offence and not a quasi­civil proceeding The trial Court also did not considered the fact that after the wife was turned out by her husband she was not cared for by him. The application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. was decided against the settled principles of law. The Principal Judge, Family Court did not at all give any opinion in the impugned judgment on the factual aspect that the husband has not paid any amount to the wife till date and that by itself per se is the proof of neglect and refusal to maintain. It seems as has been submitted by the revisionist, that Principal Judge Family Court Gorakhpur was prejudiced by the order passed by this Court for expeditious disposal of the application of the revisionist under Section 125, Cr.P.C. He was required to give his judgment looking to the merits of the case. Proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. is in the nature of a quasi-civil proceeding. The principle role of proving the guilt to the hilt does not apply to such proceedings. The Principal Judge, Family Court did not act in a legal manner and passed the impugned order. He has committed miscarriage of justice. His order rejecting the application of the revisionist is purely conjectural and without any tenable and valid reasons. Let me remind here that the provision of Section 125, Cr.P.C. are enacted as an emergency provision to provide economic help to the wife and minor children who are dependent upon the husband and the father. It had a salutary purpose of preventing vagrancy amongst females in case of neglect by their husbands. They, in such a situation, become destitute and hence must be provided with adequate means of livelihoods by the husband. The proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C.is in the nature of a quasi-civil proceeding and is summary in nature. It is enacted for the benefit of the wife and children who are destitute and therefore it must be decided keeping in view the purpose of it’s enactment unlike a criminal trial. In the present case it is clear that the husband pleaded that he was a student and under family pressure he had married. He had pleaded that he had no source of income. In the present case it is clear that the husband pleaded that he was a student and under family pressure he had married. He had pleaded that he had no source of income. These two factors taken to gather where the ample proof at neglect and refusal to maintain without proof by the wife as has been stated by the wife. I am aware that under revisional power this Court is slow to go into findings of fact but this does not mean that a perverse and totally unwarranted findinas of fact be allowed to stand. If perverse and illegal findings are allowed to stand then it will result in miscarriage of justice, which is the very ante-thesis of justice. Resultantly, the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court on the application of the revisionist under Section 125, Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to be sustained as it amounts to miscarriage of a justice. 11. In view of what has been observed above, this revision against the order dated 18.4.2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Gorakhpur in Criminal Case No. 605 of 2002 is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Principal Judge, Family Court with a direction to reconsider the application of the revisionist Smt. Anjali Singh under Section 125, Cr.P.C. afresh from the stage of argument and decide it in accordance with law. He is further directed to decide the aforesaid application within two weeks from the date of the production of certified copy of this order before it. With the aforesaid direction this revision is allowed. Revision Allowed. ———