ORDER 1. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 7.10.2009 passed by the Additional Principal Judge (Family Court) Durg at Bemetera, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 216/2007 dismissing the application filed by the applicant under Section ]25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 28.8.2002 an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the applicant seeking maintenance from the non-applicant herein stating that her marriage with him was solemnized on 9.12.200] .at Kobia, Tehsil Bemetara, District Durg and after living with him hardly for 15 days she was subjected to cruelty by him and his family members for bringing insufficient dowry. It is also stated in the application that at the time of marriage her father had given sufficient dowry but even then she was subjected to cruelty and when it became unbearaple, on 19.7.2002 she came down to Bemetara from her matrimonial house at Raipur. In the application filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. the applicant has put in several instances of cruelty meted out to her by the non-applicant. It is further stated in the application that several efforts were made by her and her parents to get the matter settled but they went in vain as the non-applicant was not interested to keep her. It is stated that ultimately the report was lodged by the applicant based on which the offence under Section 498-A IPC was registered against the non applicant and his family members. It is also stated in the application that she has no source of income to maintain her and that presently she is living with her retired father who is required to take care of her two other sisters and brother also. It is stated that her father does not have any other source of income and his financial condition is critical. It is stated that the non-applicant is working as Regional Manager in a pharmaceutical company and earning Rs. 15,000 per month there-from and that being husband he is under obligation to maintain her. 3. It is stated that her father does not have any other source of income and his financial condition is critical. It is stated that the non-applicant is working as Regional Manager in a pharmaceutical company and earning Rs. 15,000 per month there-from and that being husband he is under obligation to maintain her. 3. Countering the averments made by the applicant, it has been stated by the non-applicant that a false and fabricated story has been put forth by the applicant and that it is she who had left her matrimonial home of her own by giving intimation thereof to the Mahila Police Station. He has however denied that his monthly income is Rs. 15,000 and stated that as per the salary slip attached to the reply his monthly income comes to about Rs. 6000. He has also filed his subsequent salary slip showing his salary as Rs. 10,900 per month. It has been further averred by him that the applicant being an educated woman and well versed with the computer she can earn sufficiently by getting herself employed somewhere and also by giving tuition which she was doing prior to her marriage. 4. In support of her contention, the applicant has examined herself whereas the non-applicant has examined himself and one C.P. Sunahala - the employee of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, in support of his case. S. After hearing the parties and perusing the material available on record the Court below has rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Counsel for the applicant submits that the application of the applicant U/S 125 Cr.P.C. has been rejected on two erroneous grounds, firstly that the applicant is living separately without there being any sufficient reason, and secondly that she has not proved by adducing any evidence that she is unable to maintain her. According to the counsel for the applicant, it is the non-applicant who had filed the divorce petition and obtained the decree of divorce and that it is clear from the record that she was abruptly thrown out of the house by the non-applicant and therefore she had no other option but to live separately. She submits that the applicant had not deserted the non applicant and such finding given by the trial Court is erroneous. She submits that the applicant had not deserted the non applicant and such finding given by the trial Court is erroneous. She submits that the applicant has categorically proved by her application and oral evidence that she is not in a position to maintain herse1r and that erroneous finding has been given by the Court below just because the applicant is an enrolled lawyer. According to the counsel for the applicant, if a woman is merely having registration as a lawyer, it does not disentitle her to get maintenance unless it is proved by the non applicant that the applicant is having sufficient means to maintain herself. She submits that as the applicant was subjected to cruelty by the non-applicant, on her complaint a case was registered against him under Section 498-A IPC and this itself was a sufficient reason for her to live separately. She submits that claim of the applicant for maintenance can only be rejected if any of the conditions laid down under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. is fulfilled. She submits that from the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the applicant, it is evident that she is not in a position to maintain herself and as undisputedly the monthly income of the non-applicant comes to Rs. 17,000, the applicant is entitled to get the monthly maintenance of Rs. 3000 from the non applicant. 7. On the other hand counsel for the non-applicant submits that presently the applicant is a practicing lawyer of the High Court for last three years and therefore it has to be presumed that her monthly income is as such that she can maintain herself. He submits that according to the applicant herself, her monthly expenditure is around Rs. 10,000, that she is totally dependant on her retired father who is taking care of her from his pension falsifies her entire case. He submits that once the applicant is living separately without there being any reason, she is not entitled for maintenance. He submits that it is the non applicant who was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and by making false allegations she has been claiming maintenance from him. He submits that once the applicant is living separately without there being any reason, she is not entitled for maintenance. He submits that it is the non applicant who was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and by making false allegations she has been claiming maintenance from him. He submits that a decree of divorce has also been granted in favour of the non-applicant on the ground that as it is the applicant who was subjecting the non-applicant to cruelty and the said finding has been affirmed by this Court holding that she is not entitled for any maintenance. He submits that the applicant has not categorically stated that she is not in a position to maintain herself and on this ground the trial Court has rightly rejected her application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance to her. He submits that the applicant has not brought forward any material on record to show that it is her father who is maintaining her. He however very fairly admits that the non-applicant is drawing the monthly salary of Rs 17,000 and living with his father. 8. The applicant reiterating the averments made in her application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has stated in her statement recorded before the Court below on 19.2.2007 that her marriage with the non applicant herein was performed on 9.12.2001 and just 15 days thereafter she, was subjected to cruelty by him and his family members. In several paragraphs she has described as to how she was subjected to cruelty and on her report the offence under Section 498-A was registered against the non-applicant. She has stated that presently she is living in Bilaspur in a rented accommodation and preparing for examination for the post of Civil Judge and the expenditure for which comes to Rs. 10-12 thousand which is being borne by her parents and therefore she should be awarded the maintenance of Rs. 3000 per month. She has admitted that an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was tiled by her for restitution of conjugal rights which however was rejected by the Court below. According to her, the non-applicant had tiled an application for divorce which was duly replied to by her. 3000 per month. She has admitted that an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was tiled by her for restitution of conjugal rights which however was rejected by the Court below. According to her, the non-applicant had tiled an application for divorce which was duly replied to by her. She has stated that she is living in the hostel as paying guest and monthly expenditure for which comes to Rs.3,500. On a question being put to the applicant as to how much she is spending for coaching class for the Civil Judge examination, she has stated that she could not tell the exact amount as she was taking tuition for different subjects at different places. In paragraph 16 of her statement she has stated that her father is a retired employee and from the pension he is maintaining the entire family. She has admitted that at village Kobia (Bemetara) just outside the house of her father a board has been fixed showing herself as an advocate. She has further admitted that she is a member of Bar Council and High Court Bar Association. She has stated that as her father is not keeping well and cannot even hear properly, she did not examine him in the Court. She has further clarified that except her father, there is no earning member in the family. She has stated that the cell phone being used by her was given to her by her brother. She has denied that she is practicing in the Court and as she has merely enrolled herself as a lawyer, the board showing herself as advocate has been fixed in her house. She has denied that she is earning anything from her legal profession. 9. Non-applicant has stated in his court statement recorded on 9.2.2009 that his monthly income is 10,909 as per the salary slip of December 2008. He has stated that the applicant is a practicing lawyer in the Chhattisgarh High Court and that she has got a vehicle known as Scooty which was purchased by her in the year 2008. According to him, he needs Rs. 6000 towards his own expenses. In his cross examination, he has admitted that since the year 2002 he is working as Regional Manager in the company. According to him, he needs Rs. 6000 towards his own expenses. In his cross examination, he has admitted that since the year 2002 he is working as Regional Manager in the company. He has however denied that he owns a Santro Car but admitted that at village Bemetara his father has got a double storied house. He has. stated that at Urla his brother had got a factory but denied that he has any partnership in the same. He has however expressed his ignorance whether according to his financial status the applicant can maintain herself even after getting Rs. 6000 per month as maintenance. C.P. Sunehala (NAW-2) has stated that father of the applicant has retired from the post of Accountant of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board on 28.2.2002 but he could not say as to how much pension he is getting. 10. From the overall material available on record it is clear that the applicant is not in a position to maintain herself and that there is sufficient reason for her to live separately from the non applicant as he was subjecting her to cruelty for bringing insufficient dowry. The applicant has categorically deposed that immediately after few days of marriage, she was ousted from the house and subjected to cruelty by the non applicant and his family members and for that she had lodged the report under Section 498-A IPC. Though during the pendency of the case, an application seeking divorce has been allowed by the Family Court and the findings recorded in the said order have been affirmed by this Court but merely on that basis it cannot be said that she was living separately without there being any justifiable cause. In the case in hand, the evidence has come that there was sufficient reason for the applicant to live separately. The applicant has further proved her case that she is not in a position to maintain herself. Mere fact that in the Court statement the applicant has not categorically deposed that she is not in a position to maintain herself, would not nullify her entire case. The applicant has stated that it is her father who is maintaining her. The applicant has further proved her case that she is not in a position to maintain herself. Mere fact that in the Court statement the applicant has not categorically deposed that she is not in a position to maintain herself, would not nullify her entire case. The applicant has stated that it is her father who is maintaining her. Assertion of the wife that she is not doing anything is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the omission to state about her inability to maintain herself is not fatal and at best the same can be termed as a technical irregularity. If overall evidence of the applicant is taken into consideration, it is apparent that she is not in a position to maintain herself. Further, the applicant has specifically stated that monthly income of the non applicant is as such that he can maintain her. At the time of fit ing the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, monthly income of the non applicant was Rs. 6000 which was increased to around Rs. 10,900. It has been very fairly admitted by the counsel for the non applicant that at present the monthly income of the non applicant is Rs. 17,000. Thus it can be held that the non applicant is very much in a position to maintain the applicant. 11. This Court finds no force in the argument of counsel for the non applicant that the applicant has not stated anything about her monthly income and consequent inability to maintain herself. When the applicant has categorically deposed that she is not in a position to maintain herself and she is being maintained by her retired father, that itself is sufficient to hold that she is not required to state her monthly income figuratively. If according to the non applicant, the monthly income of the applicant is sufficient to maintain herself, he should have proved this fact before the Court below by adducing evidence in this regard. This Court also finds no force in the argument of the counsel for the non applicant that as the applicant is an enrolled advocate for last three years, she is not entitled for any maintenance for the reason that mere registration as an advocate does not disentitle her from getting maintenance from the non applicant. This Court also finds no force in the argument of the counsel for the non applicant that as the applicant is an enrolled advocate for last three years, she is not entitled for any maintenance for the reason that mere registration as an advocate does not disentitle her from getting maintenance from the non applicant. There is no evidence on record to show about the income of the applicant from advocacy. The analogy drawn by the Court below that the applicant is an advocate and that she has put a board in the house situated in her village shows that she is living a comfortable life, is not well founded. Relevant portion of Section 125 (1) reads as under: "125 (I) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, ... a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife...at such monthly rate as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate from time to time direct." So far as disentitlement to get maintenance is concerned, the same is specifically provided under Section 125 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under: "125(4) - No wife shall be entitled to receive an [allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings, as the case may be,] from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent." In the case in hand, none of the ingredients of this provision have been proved by the non applicant whereas the applicant has categorically deposed that just 15 days after her marriage she was subjected to cruelty by the non applicant and his family members and ultimately ousted from the matrimonial home which is more than a sufficient ground for her to live separately. 12. 12. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the applicant is not in a position to maintain herself and that she is leading her life under the patronage of her retired father and in these circumstances the non-applicant who has got sufficient means with him, is under obligation to maintain her. Thus it is held that the applicant is entitled to receive monthly maintenance from the non applicant. However, considering the totality of facts from a broad angle, keeping in mind the fact that the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was filed before the -Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 28.8.2002 and according to the record the applicant was already getting Rs. 1000 as interim maintenance with effect from 5.5.2008 till the date of order impugned Le. 7.10.2009. However, considering the difficulties likely to be faced by the non-applicant, this Court has chosen to divide the maintenance in two parts. 13. Now the question is what should be the quantum of that maintenance? Admittedly, at present the monthly income of the non applicant is Rs•. 17,000. and looking to the status of both the parties and the present day cost of living, I this Court thinks it just and reasonable that the non-applicant should pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000 to the applicant from today. However, considering the totality of facts and keeping in mind the fact that on the date of filing of the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. the income of the non-applicant was about Rs. 6000 per month which in the year 2008 rose up to Rs. 10,900 per month, it is held that the applicant is entitled to get Rs. 1000 per month from 7.10.2009 till the date on which this order has been passed. 14. Accordingly, the revision is hereby allowed. Applicant is held entitled I to get the monthly maintenance as indicated above. The applicant is also entitled to receive Rs. 5000 as cost of the litigation. I Revision Allowed.