ORDER 1. This revision petition has been filed by petitioner Shobha w/o Krishnakant being aggrieved by order dated 16.10.2007 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.25/05 dismissing the petitioner's claim to maintenance under section 125 of the CrPC. 2. Brief facts as alleged by the petitioner are that the petitioner was married to respondent Krishnakant on 6th of May, 1982 at Ujjain. As a result of matrimony, petitioner wife gave birth to son Nilesh on 30.1.1983, however, within a short span, the petitioner complained that she was turned out of the house of the respondent husband by his family members, since then she has been residing on and off with her parents. The petitioner wife also gave birth to son Nilesh in her parental home and all the expenses had been borne by her parents. When she had taken the little child along with her to her in-laws at Badnagar, the child was ill-treated and had to be hospitalized despite which she returned to her husband's house. When finally she was turned out by her husband, she did not lose courage, but made an attempt by staying with her parents to try and patch up with the husband. When there was death of her sister-in-law on 10.9.2001, she visited the respondent husband to offer her condolence, but her husband threatened that in case she visited them again, he would commit suicide, then all hope having deserted her, she did not visit her in-laws again. The petitioner wife has alleged that since 1982 her parents were looking after her and her husband has not contributed anything towards the maintenance of herself or her son Nilesh. On death of the parents, she was left with no other alternative, but to claim maintenance for herself and her son which she did by the application for the trial Court on 27.1.2005. 3. After a period of almost 25 years of marriage, she claimed that her husband earned around Rs.20,000 - Rs.30,000/- per month as a teacher and she claimed Rs.6,000/- per month as maintenance. The non-applicant opposed her claim on the ground that he had never refused to maintain either the wife or his child Nilesh. It was the petitioner wife who had herself left the matrimonial home and had failed to file claim maintenance since she herself has refused to return to her matrimonial home and was staying at Ujjain since 1996. The non-applicant opposed her claim on the ground that he had never refused to maintain either the wife or his child Nilesh. It was the petitioner wife who had herself left the matrimonial home and had failed to file claim maintenance since she herself has refused to return to her matrimonial home and was staying at Ujjain since 1996. The respondent husband also denied the fact that the applicant wife had visited his home at Badnagar or that she had been turned out as claimed. In 1996 on the occasion of Rakshabandhan, she had left the home herself and never returned; even on 10.9.2001 on the death of his sister, she did not turn up as claimed by the petitioner wife at Badnagar, since the condolence meeting was not held at Badnagar at all. Hence, the lies of the petitioner wife were very much evident. 4. Disclaiming her right to maintenance, the respondent husband also claimed that the wife was an employee in the Gitanjali Primary School run by Abhyuthan Mahila Sewa Samiti which was run by her parents. The husband also claimed that son Nilesh had also become a teacher in the said school and both of them did not require maintenance as claimed. Regarding his own income, he stated that he was merely a teacher and did not own any agriculture land as alleged nor did he earn Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. Moreover, his parents were dependent on him and the applicant wife and her son Nilesh are not entitled to maintenance as claimed. 5. The trial Court, however, on considering the above evidence led by the parties, came to a conclusion that respondent husband Krishnakant earned gross salary of Rs.13,412/-, as a teacher of the Higher Secondary School at Badnagar, District Ujjain and after the deduction, his net salary was Rs.10,712/- on basis of the various certificates filed by vide EX.P-1 and EX.P-2 and the evidence of Sarita Bargav PW2. However, the claim of the applicant wife was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the applicant wife had been unable to establish that she was being maltreated by the husband or that he had even refused to maintain her, so also the applicant was unable to establish the cruelty. However, the claim of the applicant wife was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the applicant wife had been unable to establish that she was being maltreated by the husband or that he had even refused to maintain her, so also the applicant was unable to establish the cruelty. The other important factor is that the application for maintenance was filed after a period of 25 years and there was no other litigation between parties and if at all the applicant wife had been aggrieved, she could have taken resort to some sort of a legal remedy by filing either for divorce or maintenance earlier. Moreover, the applicant No.2 son Nilesh being a teacher and independent could not claim maintenance on his having attained a majority, so also the burden of proving that her salary was not adequate was on applicant wife Shobha herself, which has not been discharged, although from the record of the school, it was found that she was working as a Director in the same school. In view of the above, the trial Court dismissed the application of both the applicants i.e., Shobha and her son Nilesh and being aggrieved, the applicant wife has filed the present revision. 6. Having exhaustively described the dispute in detail, I need not go into the details of the controversy again. Learned counsel for the petitioner wife has claimed that the trial Court had erred in rejecting the petitioner's claim under section 125 of the CrPC since the trial Court had failed to consider that it was at the behest of the parents of the applicant that she had not filed any case in any Court or registered any complaint at police station for their reputation was of prime concern and the parents always hoped that one day the son-in-law would take their daughter back; that they did not encourage the applicant wife to file any case and an inordinate delay on the part of the wife was easily explained. That after their demise she was left no alternative but to turn to the Court for relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner wife stated that the trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the fact that she did not have any salary from the said institution run by her parents, was clearly established and had not been proved by the husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner wife stated that the trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the fact that she did not have any salary from the said institution run by her parents, was clearly established and had not been proved by the husband. There was not an iota of evidence to prove that she was earning any amount of money from the said institution although she was working and assisting her parents to run institution in their lifetime as a Director. Learned counsel urged that at present she was not working in the institution and did not have any money for her daily livelihood. 7. Learned counsel also pointed out that an affidavit stating her present status had been filed and she had also been deserted by her son Nilesh and what was required to be considered under the present revision was the entitlement of the petitioner for maintenance. Relying on recent judgment of the apex Court in the matter of Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai [ 2008(2) JLJ 70 =2008 Cri.LJ 727], learned counsel stated that the apex Court had in no uncertain terms held that the phrase "unable to maintain herself" means unable to maintain herself in way she was living with her husband and in the said case when the parents has placed material to show that the respondent wife was earning some income, the apex Court had held that it was not sufficient to rule out the application of section 125 of the CrPC. It has to be established that with the amount she earned respondent wife was able to maintain herself. Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient, she can claim maintenance under section 125 of the CrPC. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. The conclusions of Courts that respondent wife unable to maintain herself was factual and cannot be interfered with in absence of perversity. 8. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. The conclusions of Courts that respondent wife unable to maintain herself was factual and cannot be interfered with in absence of perversity. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the revision stating that the scope of a revision was limited to the error of law apparent on the face of record and disputed facts should not be assessed in a revision. Learned counsel for the respondent averred that the petitioner wife had been unable to establish that she was ready and willing to go back to the respondent husband before the trial Court. Moreover, the trial Court had clearly held that the cruelty as alleged by the applicant wife was not proved and the trial Court had categorically held that the applicant had without sufficient reasons started living separately from the husband and was residing at Indore by earning her own income. Moreover, stressing the delay in filing the application, learned counsel stated that more than 25 years have been lapsed from the wife to realize that she could claim maintenance from the husband so it is a false application to meet an intention to disturb the husband and all her allegations were falsified by a very simple fact that she had been unable to establish that she had visited husband at Badnagar since no condolence meeting on the demise of his sister was held at Badnagar at all. The entire story was falsely put up and the applicant was not a reliable witness. Her conduct itself demonstrated that she was not willing to live with her husband. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that son Nilesh had not been examined and he was not entitled to maintenance as claimed by the wife in the trial and has rightly been denied the same by the trial Court. Fully supporting the judgment of the trial Court, learned counsel urged that all the disputed facts raised in the revision were findings of fact which could not be looked into. Fully supporting the judgment of the trial Court, learned counsel urged that all the disputed facts raised in the revision were findings of fact which could not be looked into. He also disputed the fact that the petitioner is unable to now maintain herself according to the affidavit files before this Court and that is evident before this Court from the affidavit dated 19.2.2008, the same could not be read into, since complainant would not be permitted under the circumstances to adduce additional evidence by way of filing an affidavit at this stage in a criminal revision. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on Rama Prasanna Tiwari v. Smt. Ashima [ 2005(II) MPWN 33 ], whereby this Court had held that the cases under section 125 of the CrPC before the Family Court for recording the evidence according to the Act as envisaged the Court can adopt its own procedure and thereby the Court also further held that affidavit evidence as has been produced by the respondents could not be said to be evidence recorded in the presence of the petitioner. Provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable for the proceedings under Chapter IX of the CrPC. The case is tangentially off the point and is of no help to the respondent. 10. Moreover, learned counsel also averred that the claim of the petitioner and allegations had been falsified by the very fact that she made tall claims for reconciliation, which were not true and averred that the petitioner wife was not entitled to maintenance as she has independent income and was able to look after herself and her son. In view of the fact, learned counsel urged that the revision be dismissed. 11. Considering above submissions, I find that this Court had tried to make an attempt for reconciliation and both the parties were asked to remain present in Court on 13.3.2008. Petitioner Shobha had personally stated before this Court that she was willing to make the bygones be bygones and was willing to reside with the respondent husband. The respondent husband was present in person and stated that he was a teacher and earned Rs.10,000/- per month. He however, refused to take his wife back stating that since he had lived alone for more than 25 years, he was no longer interested in taking his wife back. The respondent husband was present in person and stated that he was a teacher and earned Rs.10,000/- per month. He however, refused to take his wife back stating that since he had lived alone for more than 25 years, he was no longer interested in taking his wife back. Considering the affidavit filed by the petitioner wife on 19.2.2008 regarding her present status in this background, I find that it is a trite law to state that High Court in a case of any proceedings in which records have been called for, can exercise jurisdiction and powers conferred on a Court of appeal and especially, when the Judge of the lower Court has exhibited capriciousness in appreciation of evidence, it is within the jurisdiction of the High Court sitting in revision to apprise the evidence. Then in this light, it would be crucial to examine the testimony of the non-applicant husband before the trial Court itself. He has categorically stated in para 26 of his deposition : ^^;fn vkosfndk vkt esjs lkFk jguk pkgs rks eSa mls j[kus ds fy, rS;kj ugha gw¡ D;ksafd brus lky gks x, gSaA** 12. Then, it is incomprehensible to me as to how the learned Judge of the trial Court came to a conclusion that the applicant wife was not willing to reside with the husband without just cause. Her several attempts time and again to patch up the matrimonial relations are evident and crystal clear from her testimony. She has also explained the 'blunder' that had occurred by stating that she had gone to Badnagar for condolence meeting on the death of her sister-in-law. She stated that it was error committed by the learned counsel and she had correctly visited the condolence meeting held at Ujjain itself. Merely denying the claim on hyper-technical grounds would be taking undue advantage of the provisions of law to twist the beneficial aspects of section 125 of the CrPC. The apex Court in the matter of Chaturbhuj (supra), has aptly observed thus: "51. Merely denying the claim on hyper-technical grounds would be taking undue advantage of the provisions of law to twist the beneficial aspects of section 125 of the CrPC. The apex Court in the matter of Chaturbhuj (supra), has aptly observed thus: "51. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and the phrase, 'unable to maintain herself' in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. Section 125 of the CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and others [ AIR 1978 SC 1807 ], falls within Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the "Constitution"). It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and others [ 2005(2) Supreme 503 ]. 6. Under the law the burden is placed in the first place upon the wife to show that the means of her husband are sufficient. In the instant case there is no dispute that the appellant has the requisite means. 7. But there is an inseparable condition which has also to be satisfied that the wife was unable to maintain herself. These two conditions are in addition to the requirement that the husband must have neglected or refused to maintain his wife. It has to be established that the wife was unable to maintain herself. The appellant has placed material to show that the respondent wife was earning some income. That is not sufficient to rule out application of section 125 of CrPC. It has to be established that the wife was unable to maintain herself. The appellant has placed material to show that the respondent wife was earning some income. That is not sufficient to rule out application of section 125 of CrPC. It has to be established that with the amount she earned the respondent wife was able to maintain herself. 8. In an illustrative case where wife was surviving by begging, would not amount to her ability to maintain herself. It can also be not said that the wife has been capable of earning but she was not making an effort to earn. Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under section 125 of CrPC. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. In Bhagwari v. Kamla Devi [ AIR 1975 SC 83 ], it was observed that the wife should be in a position to maintain standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression 'unable to maintain herself' does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under section 125 CrPC." 13. Moreover, an important fact that cannot be blinked away or marginalized is that both the parties have not filed any case for divorce, which makes it apparent that the pit fall of their marriage lies in the clash of egos. It also explains the inordinate delay of 25 years in filing of application for maintenance since both the petitioner and the respondent are educated persons and teacher by profession then in the light of above, the delay cannot be held as a bar to filing of the application for maintenance and entirely relying on the judgment passed of the apex Court in the matter of Chatwbhuj (supra), the impugned order of the Family Court dated 10.10.2007 is set aside. 14. 14. Moreover, during the course of the arguments, it was admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent that the findings of the trial Court were admitted and proved regarding the fact that the respondent husband earned a salary of Rs.13,412/- and his net salary was Rs.10,712/-. Besides, the respondent has also admitted before this Court that he was earning around Rs.10,000/-. Then, under these circumstances, I deem it fit to grant maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to petitioner wife Shobha from the date of application for the simple reason that the respondent husband has also not disputed that he did not pay a single penny to the wife for the maintenance of his son Nilesh merely on the basis of the fact that the wife never asked for any maintenance. That, it is an undisputed fact that the wife has herself brought up her son Nilesh single handedly and today unfortunately he has also deserted her and admittedly the petitioner wife is living without any support of either parents or son Nilesh or her husband. The respondent husband shall make payment of the arrears of the maintenance along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. within a period of two months from the date of this order and continue to pay the maintenance to the wife @ Rs.3,000/- per month before the 10th of each calender month. 15. Thus, the revision petition is allowed. Counsel fees Rs.3,000/-, if certified.