JUDGMENT : 1. On 7.7.2004 the applicant filed Criminal Misc. Application No.96/2004 before the Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Nandurbar praying therein maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month from the respondent, for herself and three children. Her marriage was solemnized about eight years prior and still it is subsisting. They have two daughters and one son. 2. It is the case of the applicant that for seven years after her marriage she was treated well in the family. When the petitioner was pregnant, about one year before the date of application, she was not keeping good health. During sickness, she delivered the youngest daughter Manisha at the house of the respondent. She was badly in need of medical treatment, however, respondent neglected and did not provide proper medical treatment. She informed this to her parents and her parents visited her and also requested the respondent to provide proper medical treatment. The respondent, however, dropped the petitioner at her parents house where she had to reside since she was not in good health. The respondent kept with him the youngest daughter Manisha and told the applicant that she should come back after recovers from her ailment. The applicant on next day sent her brother to the house of the respondent to fetch daughter Manisha, however, the respondent did not send the daughter Manisha to the applicant’s brother. About after 20 to 22 days when the applicant recovered from her ailment she along with her parents and the panch of the village went to the house of the respondent with a request that she should resume cohabitation with the applicant. The respondent refused and drove away the applicant from his house and warned that the applicant should not enter his house again otherwise he would kill her. 3. It is further case of the applicant that the applicant on two more occasions after a gap of fifteen days attempted to convince the respondent to resume cohabitation and join his company was made. However, said attempt was not materialised in view of the respondent’s behaviour. The applicant was forced to reside with her parents on 27.6.2004, when the applicant had been to the house of respondent to fetch her younger daughter Manisha, the respondent abused and assaulted her by fist blows and drove her out of his house and said that he would not allow the applicant to meet their daughter. 4. The applicant was forced to reside with her parents on 27.6.2004, when the applicant had been to the house of respondent to fetch her younger daughter Manisha, the respondent abused and assaulted her by fist blows and drove her out of his house and said that he would not allow the applicant to meet their daughter. 4. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant is not earning anything and she is unable to maintain herself. The respondent is an agriculturist and has 10 to 15 acres of ancestral agricultural land and has about Rs.40 to 50 thousand income per year from the said land. The respondent is also working as a mason and earns daily wages of Rs.200/- and, therefore, has sufficient means to provide maintenance to the applicant. Thus, applicant claimed for grant of monthly maintenance of Rs.1500/- from the respondent and a cost of Rs.1500/- of the application. 5. On 19.11.2005 J.M.F.C. upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, found that the petitioner is entitled and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- p.m. from the date of application. 6. The respondent filed Criminal Revision Application No.28/2005 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar. The present applicant being dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance preferred Criminal Revision No.3/2006 for enhancement of maintenance from Rs.500/- per month to Rs.1500/- per month from the date of application. 7. On 14.3.2007 both the revision applications arising out of the judgment and order dated 19.11.2005 passed by the J.M.F.C.Nandurbar and the Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar were decided by common judgment and order in Criminal Revision No.28/2005. The revisional Court set aside the judgment and order of the J.M.F.C. dated 19.11.2005. The learned Judge also dismissed the criminal revision filed by the applicant. Hence this application. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the revisional Court is unsustainable. It is further submitted that the findings of the facts recorded by J.M.F.C. about the entitlement did not, at all call for any interference since same were correct, legal and proper. It is further submitted that the applicant is Adivasi woman and from the remote village of Nandurbar district. The learned Judge could not have applied high standards of pleading or evidence, which may be or could have been applied i case of educated and sophisticated urban women. It is further submitted that the applicant is Adivasi woman and from the remote village of Nandurbar district. The learned Judge could not have applied high standards of pleading or evidence, which may be or could have been applied i case of educated and sophisticated urban women. It is settled position of law that the pleadings in mofussil ought to be liberaly construed. It is further submitted that the learned Judge ought to have applied the position of law and not merely mentioned the same by way of lip service. It is further submitted that although the learned Judge has in para 13 of the judgment stated the correct position of law with regard to the grant of maintenance to a wife under Section 125 of Cr.PC has, however, clearly failed to apply the law while holding that the applicant is not entitled to maintenance. It is further submitted that on correct appreciation of pleadings as well as evidence of the petitioner, though there was no grievance for about seven years since marriage, however, since the applicant was pregnant at the time of her third issue, around July 2003, she fell sick and was not keeping good health, she delivered the child in ailment and sickness. The respondent-husband did not provide medical treatment though applicant insisted for the same. It is further submitted that when there was refusal by the respondent-husband to provide medical treatment and to maintain the applicant-wife, the wife leaving the house and going to her parents house clearly amounts to refusal and neglect. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Sessions Judge in para nos.16 and 17 had clearly recorded the erroneous and unsustainable findings. The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was not keeping good health. This led her to resign from her job of Anganwadi Sevika on 15.12.2001. The respondent-husband thus clearly appears to have failed in the responsibility of providing medical treatment to his wife which amounts to refusal and neglect. It is further submitted that it has been established on record that the applicant’s attempts to resume cohabitation have been flatly turned down by the respondent-husband. Int his view of the matter, the applicant has clearly made out the case for her separate residence and entitlement to maintenance. It is further submitted that it has been established on record that the applicant’s attempts to resume cohabitation have been flatly turned down by the respondent-husband. Int his view of the matter, the applicant has clearly made out the case for her separate residence and entitlement to maintenance. The learned counsel further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the applicant has clearly made out a case for grant of maintenance and has established, according to learned Sessions Judge is required as observed in para 13 of the judgment (i) she is legally wedded wife of the respondent, (ii) husband has neglected and refused to maintain, (iii) she is unable to maintain herself and (iv) husband has sufficient means to provide separate maintenance. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Judge has in para 22 recorded findings about the quantum of maintenance and came to the wrong conclusion that the applicant though serving previously and earning, has no job or earning at present. The respondent on the other hand is earning a daily wage of Rs.100/- and also has 12 to 15 acres ancestral agricultural land. Thus, the learned Judge too has held that point nos.3 and 4 are properly and correctly answered by the J.M.F.C. in the affirmative. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent has sufficient means to provide separate maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month to the applicant. It is admitted position that the applicant has to maintain herself and three children. It is submitted that having regard to the present cost of living Rs.1500/- per month would even not cover the cost of basic requirement of four human beings. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the revisional Court was not justified in setting aside the order passed by the J.M.F.C. Hence he prayed that application deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar in Criminal Revision Application No.28/2005 and Criminal Revision Application No.3/2006. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the negligence and refusal on the part of respondent is prerequisite condition for wife to claim maintenance from the husband. Further she must be unable to maintain herself. He further submits that applicant-wife herself went to parental house. Aforesaid fact has been admitted by the applicant-wife in her evidence before the lower Court. Further she must be unable to maintain herself. He further submits that applicant-wife herself went to parental house. Aforesaid fact has been admitted by the applicant-wife in her evidence before the lower Court. Moreover, what has been pleaded is contrary to the evidence, the applicant has pleaded that respondent took her to her parents house. Father of applicant deposed that he brings to her daughter, applicant in her examination-in-chief deposed that she herself left the house of opponent. Respondent submits that what has been pleaded is not supported by the evidence and what is tried to be proved by leading evidence finds no place in pleading. 10. Respondent submits that pleadings in original application did not blames about the behaviour of respondent for the period of seven years after the marriage. It has been further pleaded that bitterness cropped up between applicant and respondent when applicant give the birth to 3rd child namely Manisha and when respondent refuse to give medical treatment to applicant. Respondent submits that, applicant-wife was suffering from her continuous ailment. Respondent submits that applicant-wife resigned from the post of montesary worker on 15.12.2001 because of her illness i.e., continuous ailment. Aforesaid fact evidence that even prior to submission of resignation she was suffering from continuous ailment. 11. Respondent submits that alleged ill-treatment is of 2004 not providing medical treatment to her. Respondent submits that, applicant resigned in 2001 for the reason of continuous ailment that means, since 2000 to 2004 treatment was given by the respondent. Applicant-wife never complained about non-providing medical treatment for the said period, without pleading all these fact first time in 2003 applicant alleged about not providing medical treatment. Respondent submits that except pleadings no evidence has been brought on record by the applicant to show that respondent refused to give medical treatment to applicant. Respondent submits that learned Revisional Court rightly held that, non providing medical treatment cannot be termed as refusal on the part of husband to maintain the applicant-wife. 12. Respondent submits that applicant-wife has no grievance about behaviour of the applicant, there is allegation about the cruelty or ill-treatment. 13. It is pertinent to note that, in cross-examination question was put to both the applicant and respondent as to whether they are ready to cohabit with each other. 12. Respondent submits that applicant-wife has no grievance about behaviour of the applicant, there is allegation about the cruelty or ill-treatment. 13. It is pertinent to note that, in cross-examination question was put to both the applicant and respondent as to whether they are ready to cohabit with each other. Respondent shown his willingness to take applicant to his house, however, applicant-wife refused to cohabit with respondent on the ground that she has apprehension of danger to her life. 14. Respondent submits that he has not neglected or refused to maintain her, there was no ill-treatment to the applicant. Applicant herself has left the company of the respondent. Moreover, she is not willing to cohabit with the respondent, considering all these facts learned Revisional Court has rightly set aside the order dtd.11.11.2005 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.Nandurbar in Criminal M.A.No.96/2004 dismissing Revision Petition. 15, After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent and after perusal of the record made available and judgment and order passed by the J.M.F.C. as well as Revisional Court, I am of the considered view that the revisional Court has not properly appreciated the contentions of the applicant and set aside the judgment and order passed by J.M.F.C.. The learned J.M.F.C.Nandurbar had framed as many as six points for determination and came to the conclusion that applicant has proved that opponent neglected and refused to maintain her. Further applicant has proved that she has sufficient cause to reside separately and claim maintenance. It is further proved by the applicant that she is unable to maintain herself and the respondent has sufficient means to provide separate maintenance to her at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. 16. The learned J.M.F.C. has recorded findings that the father of the applicant has deposed before the Court at Exh.26 and it has come in his evidence that before the birth of Manisha applicant fell sick. It has further come in his deposition that applicant told him that she has no money for medical treatment and, therefore, he took her to his house for medical treatment. When the brother of the applicant was sent to the house of the husband that time the respondent-husband shut the door of the house and refused to give Manisha. It has further come in his deposition that applicant told him that she has no money for medical treatment and, therefore, he took her to his house for medical treatment. When the brother of the applicant was sent to the house of the husband that time the respondent-husband shut the door of the house and refused to give Manisha. The J.M.F.C. further recorded the evidence of one Bapu Saliram, Dama Deva Kokani and Laxman Narayan who went at the matrimonial house of the applicant and that time opponent refused to take the applicant in his house. When they went to the matrimonial house, the respondent-husband refused to take the applicant in his house. 17. The opponent-husband deposed on oath at Ex.28 the J.M.F.C. has recorded that, the respondent-husband deposed that the expenses of medical treatment of applicant were incurred by his father. He further deposed that for the purposes of medical treatment of the applicant his father borrowed 20,000 rupees. The learned J.M.F.C. in para 14 observed that, on perusal of entire evidence on record noticed that there are two versions coming from the applicant and opponent-husband and then J.M.F.C. recorded that the contention of the opponent-husband is falsified that after marriage the applicant did not like to do the household works and, therefore, she insisted him to reside her parental house. It is further observed that it is also pertinent to note that Kashiram Gaba Gaikwad witness deposed in his examination-in-chief that he did not know as to why applicant went at her parental house. If the applicant was not doing household work and on that count she was insisting to reside at her parental house, then in that event the father of the opponent would have got knowledge regarding that fact. It is further observed by the J.M.F.C. in para 15 that though bills issued by the hospital are produced on record, the J.M.F.C. has recorded that the testimony of applicant is more reliable and truthful. On perusal of agreement at Exh.32 it is noticed that it was executed on 25th May 1999. The applicant was sick in the year 2003 and the story of the opponent-husband that his father borrowed Rs.20000/- by mortgaging his land for the purpose of medical treatment of applicant holds no water. On perusal of agreement at Exh.32 it is noticed that it was executed on 25th May 1999. The applicant was sick in the year 2003 and the story of the opponent-husband that his father borrowed Rs.20000/- by mortgaging his land for the purpose of medical treatment of applicant holds no water. On perusal of the document of agreement the J.M.F.C. noticed that in the agreement sentence, namely, "the amount was borrowed for the purpose of medical treatment of Manglabai" is in another ink and it appears that the sentence is inserted subsequent to the execution of agreement and, therefore, J.M.F.C. recorded the findings that father of the opponent borrowed Rs.20000/- for the purpose of construction of well appears to be probable and not for the medical treatment of the applicant. 18. The learned J.M.F.C. recorded the findings that the applicant has proved that the husband neglected and refused to maintain her. 19. The learned J.M.F.C. while dealing with point no.2 held that it does appear that the applicant when went to the house of opponent-husband he threatened to kill her by burning. Therefore, J.M.F.C. has recorded findings that applicant has proved that she has sufficient cause to reside separately and claim maintenance. 20. The J.M.F.C. further held that since applicant is unable to maintain herself, she is entitled for the maintenance. The learned J.M.F.C. further held that the respondent-husband has sufficient means to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.500/- per month to the applicant-wife and, therefore, ultimately by well reasoned judgment and order the J.M.F.C. partly allowed the application filed by the applicant-wife and directed the respondent-husband to pay Rs.500/- per month towards maintenance. 21. The revisional Court on revision filed by the respondent-husband has set aside the judgment and order passed by the J.M.F.C. The learned revisional Court framed as many as four points for the consideration and determination. The revisional Court in para 16 has reached to the erroneous conclusion that the averment in the application that the opponent took the applicant to the house of her parents is not supported by the own testimony of the applicant as well as the evidence of other witnesses. Therefore, the evidence of the applicant before the Court that she left the house of opponent herself has to be accepted. Therefore, the evidence of the applicant before the Court that she left the house of opponent herself has to be accepted. The learned Judge further recorded in para 17 that the applicant was continuously suffering from an ailment and the respondent-husband had done the duties for certain period and the husband has done whatever possible to be done for him and ultimately revisional Court reached to the conclusion that not providing medical aid is no refusal on the part of opponent to maintain the applicant-wife. The revisional Court in para 18 has observed that the applicant-wife was also suggested during her cross-examination to join the company of the opponent-husband but she refused on the ground that she had apprehension of danger to her life at his house but this fact is not mentioned in her application and the learned Judge reached to the conclusion that the apprehension of the applicant-wife of danger to her life is baseless and ultimately the revisional Court reached to the conclusion that the applicant-wife left company of the respondent-husband without reasonable cause and against his wish and without his consent, it is plain and simple that she has refused to live with her husband without any sufficient reason. The revisional Court by cryptic order came to the conclusion that, the wife failed to establish that the respondent-husband refused and neglected to maintain the wife. Therefore, order passed by the J.M.F.C. granting maintenance to the applicant came to be set aside. The criminal revision application no.28/2005 filed by the husband came to be allowed and the revision filed by the wife for enhancement of the maintenance amount came to be rejected. 22. On careful perusal of the order passed by the revisional Court it is apparent that the revisional court has not properly assessed the contention of the applicant. The certain observations and findings recorded by the revisional Court are not sustainable in law. The J.M.F.C. has correctly recorded the findings taking into consideration the entire evidence brought on record. The J.M.F.C. has minutely analysed the evidence, depositions and had come to the correct conclusion. The revisional court is absolutely incorrect in recording that whatever was possible for the husband to give medical treatment has been done by the husband. During the ailment of the wife, refusal of giving medical treatment/aid to the wife amounts to refusal and neglecting the wife. The revisional court is absolutely incorrect in recording that whatever was possible for the husband to give medical treatment has been done by the husband. During the ailment of the wife, refusal of giving medical treatment/aid to the wife amounts to refusal and neglecting the wife. Moreover, the J.M.F.C. has rightly appreciated the evidence and believed the statement of the wife and truthfulness of the statement of the wife. The J.M.F.C. has correctly perused the agreement produced on record by the opponent-husband and came to the conclusion that certain sentences were inserted in said agreement and on said fabricated document the husband tried to put forth his case that loan amount of Rs.20,000/- was borrowed by the father of the respondent-husband for medical treatment. The J.M.F.C. has recorded that said agreement is of 1999 and the ailment of the wife is for subsequent period in 2003. The J.M.F.C. was absolutely correct in analysing the truthfulness of the applicant’s statement and evidence and rejecting the statement of the opponent-husband and evidence brought on record. The revisional Court, in my considered view, has not properly appreciated the contentions of the applicant and has reached to the erroneous conclusion by cryptic findings and observations which are not sustainable in law. The revisional court should not have expected strict proof in maintenance cases. Though the remedy of filing application for maintenance is under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the Apex Court has time to time held that the proceedings under section 125 of Cr.P.C. are of civil nature. For all these reasons, the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar setting aside the judgment and order in Criminal Misc. Application No.96/2004 on 19.11.2005 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.Nandurbar is quashed and set aside. The clause (i) of the order i.e., allowing Criminal Revision Application No.28/2005 filed by the respondent-husband is set aside. The clause (iii) of the order of the revisional Court rejecting the application for enhancement of the monthly maintenance filed by the applicant-wife is set aside. Liberty is granted to the applicant-wife to file application before the competent Court for enhancement of the compensation amount. With these observations, application is allowed. The respondent-husband is directed to pay Rs.500/- per month to the applicant-wife as directed by the J.M.F.C.Nandurbar. The judgment and order in Criminal Misc. Application No.96/2004 dated 19.11.2005 passed by the J.M.F.C. Nandurbar is restored. Liberty is granted to the applicant-wife to file application before the competent Court for enhancement of the compensation amount. With these observations, application is allowed. The respondent-husband is directed to pay Rs.500/- per month to the applicant-wife as directed by the J.M.F.C.Nandurbar. The judgment and order in Criminal Misc. Application No.96/2004 dated 19.11.2005 passed by the J.M.F.C. Nandurbar is restored. The respondent-husband is directed to pay all arrears towards maintenance as per order dated 19.11.2005 by the J.M.F.C. With these observations application is allowed. However, it is made clear that the prayer of the applicant before the competent Court for enhancement of the maintenance amount would be subject matter of the fresh application which may be filed by the applicant before the competent Court and, therefore, though the part of the order of the revisional Court, rejecting application of the present applicant for enhancement of maintenance amount is restored, the applicant-wife will be entitled for the enhancement of maintenance amount if any only in case same is decided in her favour by the competent Court. With these observations application is disposed of.