JUDGMENT 1. The Revision Petitioner/Husband has filed the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the Judgment dated 26/3/2008 in Crl.R.C.No.28 of 2007 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Theni, in reversing the order dated 23/10/2007 in M.C.No.18 of 2007 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni in allowing the Maintenance Petition filed by the Respondent/Wife. 2. The Learned Principal District Judge, Theni, while passing the Judgment/Order in Crl.R.C.No.28 of 2007, on 26/3/2008 has among other things observed that “the Respondent (Revision Petitioner) is to maintain legally the wife (Revision Petitioner before the District Court and the Respondent before this Court) and taking into account the Respondent's (Revision Petitioner/Husband) present income status, circumstances, awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- from the date of filing of the petition to the Respondent/Wife and accordingly, set aside the order dated 23/10/2007 passed by the trial Court in M.C.No.18 of 2007 and allowed the Revision accordingly. 3. Feeling dissatisfied with the award of monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/- granted by the Learned Principal District Judge, Theni in Crl.R.C.No.28 of 2007 dated 26/3/2008, the Revision Petitioner/Husband as an aggrieved person has filed the present Criminal Revision Petition before this Court. 4. According to the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Husband, the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, should have seen that the Respondent/Wife as P.W.1 before the trial Court has categorically admitted that she has gone to her parental home on her own and deserted the husband (Revision Petitioner) which has been proved as per Ex.R.1 Letter written by her and therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Husband urges before this Court that the Respondent/Wife as P.W.1 in her evidence has admitted that H.M.O.P.No.17 of 2006 on the file of the Sub-Court, Periyakulam has been filed by the Revision Petitioner/Husband seeking the relief of divorce and in fact, P.W.3, brother of the Wife, admitted in his evidence that on 21/1/2007, the Petitioner (Husband) issued Divorce Notice to the Respondent/Wife. Therefore, there is no scope for the Revision Petitioner/Husband to harass the Respondent/Wife on 13/2/2007. 6. Yet another submission advanced on behalf of the Petitioner/Husband is that the Respondent/Wife has admitted in her evidence that the Revision Petitioner/Husband lost his job and that he is a coolie and therefore, he cannot be directed to pay maintenance, in as much as he has no resource to maintain himself. 7. 6. Yet another submission advanced on behalf of the Petitioner/Husband is that the Respondent/Wife has admitted in her evidence that the Revision Petitioner/Husband lost his job and that he is a coolie and therefore, he cannot be directed to pay maintenance, in as much as he has no resource to maintain himself. 7. Lastly, it is the stand of the Revision Petitioner/Husband that the Respondent/Wife in her evidence has admitted that earlier, she worked in a Company and received salary and also her family members received income from properties and therefore, she is able to maintain herself. 8. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Wife that the Respondent/Wife has filed M.C.No.18 of 2007 before the trial Court claiming a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/-p.m., from the Revision Petitioner/Husband and that even though the trial Court has dismissed the claim of maintenance in M.C.No.18 of 2007, the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Theni has rightly appreciated the entire gamut of the matter in a proper and real perspective in Crl.R.C.No.28 of 2007 (filed by the Respondent/Wife) and ultimately, awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/-as maintenance to her, which may not be disturbed by this Court at this distance point of time. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Husband, by way of reply submits that the Revision Petitioner/Husband is a chronic diabetic patient and because of this ailment, he has lost his job and further he is not able to maintain himself and therefore, the award of maintenance at Rs.1,000/-p.m., passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, directing the Revision Petitioner/Husband to pay the Respondent/Wife is not at all a legally valid one in the eye of Law. 10. Before the trial Court, in M.C.No.18 of 2007 on behalf of the Respondent/Wife (Petitioner in M.C.No.18 of 2007 witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4 have been examined and Exs.P.1 to P.5 have been marked. On the side of the Revision Petitioner (Respondent/Husband), witnesses R.W.1 has been examined and Exs.R.1 to R.3 have been marked. 11. 10. Before the trial Court, in M.C.No.18 of 2007 on behalf of the Respondent/Wife (Petitioner in M.C.No.18 of 2007 witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4 have been examined and Exs.P.1 to P.5 have been marked. On the side of the Revision Petitioner (Respondent/Husband), witnesses R.W.1 has been examined and Exs.R.1 to R.3 have been marked. 11. The trial Court (Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni), after contest, on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to a categorical conclusion that Ex.R.1 Letter has been written by the Respondent/Wife on whole heartedly and in the said Letter, she has stated that she is not liking the life and therefore, she is going to live with her parents and kith and kin etc., and finally held that the Respondent/Wife, without any sufficient cause has left the Revision Petitioner/Husband and therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance from him and consequently, dismissed the Claim Petition. 12. At this juncture, this Court makes an useful reference to the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and the evidence of R.W.1 for fuller and better appreciation of the merits of the matters in issue. 13. P.W.1 (Respondent/Wife) in her evidence has deposed that her marriage with the Revision Petitioner/Husband has taken place on 11/9/2005 at Theni - Perumal Temple and that the marriage expenses has been shared equally by two sides and that at the time of her marriage, her parents have given 35 sovereign of jewels to her, cot, bed, mixie, grinder and other house-hold articles as seervarisai and also her parents have given Rs.50,000/- in cash and after marriage, she has remained in the house of Revision Petitioner/Husband and thereafter, she has gone for the job and that she has studied upto +2 and she has worked as an Accountant at VPL Mill and also worked in Manimegalai Departmental Store and earned a monthly sum of Rs.2,000/- and without taking a pie from her earnings, she has paid the entire salary of Rs.2,000/- to her mother-in-law, who resided with her. 14. It is the further evidence of P.W.1 (Respondent/Wife) that her Husband's own brother is residing nearby and her mother-in-law is residing with the Revision Petitioner (Husband) and that she is not residing with her elder son and her Husband (Revision Petitioner) has worked as Electrician at Renuga Mill and earned a monthly salary of Rs.5,000/-. 14. It is the further evidence of P.W.1 (Respondent/Wife) that her Husband's own brother is residing nearby and her mother-in-law is residing with the Revision Petitioner (Husband) and that she is not residing with her elder son and her Husband (Revision Petitioner) has worked as Electrician at Renuga Mill and earned a monthly salary of Rs.5,000/-. Further, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that her mother-in-law has been doing the job of lending money on interest to the nearby people and she has given her salary to her husband and that her Husband and his Brother and Nephew, created a problem stating that her salary has to be given to her mother-in-law and she will not be given any amount towards her hand expenses and she has been harassed to the extent of demanding money and further that, her husband has no ancestral property and he sold her jewels and purchased a land measuring an extent of 5 ½ cents and also from her savings, a house has been taken on 'othi' for Rs.1 lakh and it has been let out for rent and a sum of Rs.2,000/- p.m., is received as rent and she has no children. Since she has no children, her Husband (Revision Petitioner) after divorcing her, arrangements have been made to marry her husband's brother's wife's maternal daughter Anandhi of Chinnamanoor for the second time and that she has undergone a medical check up at Theni Government Hospital and also at Theni Annai Hospital for her child birth problem and that the Doctor has given certificate to her stating that there is no problem for her to conceive and for her Husband/Revision Petitioner, no medical examination has been conducted and that her Husband is a diabetic and has got himself examined at Theni Government Hospital and at Theni Welfare Hospital and is taking tablets and that during the year 2005, because of her family compulsion, she has stopped from her employment and after stopping from employment, arrangements have been made for conduct of second marriage to her Husband/Revision Petitioner. 15. 15. Continuing further, the evidence of P.W.1 proceeds to the effect that the Revision Petitioner/Husband, ill-treated her by dashing her head against the wall, so as to enable her to give her consent for his second marriage and since she refused to give consent for the same, she has been driven out of the house by them and that she is presently residing in her mother's house and she is not going for any employment. Further more, she has lodged a complaint at Theni All Women Police Station on 13/2/2007 and that the Police has not taken any action and after lodging the complaint with the Police, the Revision Petitioner/Husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.17 of 2006 on the file of Periyakulam Sub-Court, seeking the relief of divorce from her and divorce case is presently pending before the Court and till date, the Revision Petitioner/Husband and his Mother are doing money lending business and enjoying the income derived from it. 16. P.W.1 {(Respondent/Wife) in her cross-examination} has deposed that she has not produced any document to show that she has earned a monthly salary of Rs.2,000/-when she worked at VPS Mill and also that her Mother-In-Law is a diabetic patient and her Husband/Revision Petitioner is residing in a rented house, on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- and per day, they used to purchase milk measuring 200 ml and in this regard, they will incur an expense of Rs.150/-p.m., and in Ex.R.1 Letter (shown to her), she has stated that she is not willing to live with the Revision Petitioner/Husband and therefore, she has to live with her parents and kith and kin etc., and that she has lived with her husband for nearly 5 to 6 years and that on 12/2/2007 night, she has left the Revision Petitioner/Husband and has gone to her parents house. 17. 17. P.W.2 (Father of Respondent/Wife and P.W.1) in his evidence has deposed that at the time of his daughter's marriage, 35 sovereigns of jewels have been given to her as seervarisai and also he has paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-and his daughter (P.W.1) worked for one year at Manimegalai Departmental Store and for four years, she worked in VPS Mill and she handed over her monthly salary to her Mother-In-Law and presently, she is residing with him in his house and that the Respondent (Son-in-Law) has filed a Divorce Case on the file of Periyakulam Court and that the Revision Petitioner (Husband) at the time of marriage has been receiving a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/- at Renuga Mill as Electrician and that they have not given any complaint for threatening his Daughter (P.W.1) with the help of hired people. 18. It is the evidence of P.W.3 (Sister of P.W.1) that the Revision Petitioner has beat her Sister (P.W.1) and has cut her 'Mangalsutra' (thali) and sent her back. 19. P.W.4 in his evidence has stated that he knows the Revision Petitioner (Husband) from his childhood and that he knows well about the Respondent/Wife alleging a complaint against the Revision Petitioner/Husband before All Women Police Station and the Revision Petitioner/Husband has informed the Police authorities that after one month, he will take the Respondent/Wife with him and that the Respondent/Wife for her child birth problem has undergone medical examination at Theni Government Hospital and in the medical report, there is no problem as to the child birth and that he does not know the Revision Petitioner/Husband is getting a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-p.m., through his employment at the Mill and that the Revision Petitioner's Mother Saroja has been conducting a chit business, besides doing the money lending business (on interest) and he is not a member of the Chit conducted by the Revision Petitioner's Mother Saroja and also he has not taken any loan amount on interest from her. 20. 20. The evidence of R.W.1 (Revision Petitioner/Husband) is that it is not correct to state that at the time of his betrothal, a sum of Rs.50,000/-has been paid as seervarisai and also 35 sovereigns of jewels have been given at the time of marriage and further, it is correct to state that after selling his wife's 20 sovereigns of jewels, he has purchased a plot in his name and in his wife's name at Theni. But, further stated that after selling his Mother's jewels only, he has purchased the aforesaid plots and out of his own volition, he has left the electrician job from Renuga Mill and in his Mother's name, he has taken a chit at Sriram Chit Fund and it is true that he has filed a Divorce Case against his wife and in Ex.R.1 Letter, no date is mentioned in any portion of the same, but the Respondent/Wife has written the letter on 11/2/2007 and till 13/2/2007, she has remained in his house and is ready to examine the witnesses Porkodi and Malarkodi in Ex.R.1 Letter and further stated that it is not correct to state that he has threatened his wife and obtained the Letter of Ex.R.1 on 13/2/2007 from his Wife (Respondent herein). 21. At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that the Respondent/Wife in her petition in M.C.No.18 of 2007 has among other things stated that since she has not given birth to any child, in spite of her marriage with the Revision Petitioner/Husband, her husband's people has scolded her in different manner/ways and also they have given numerous problem to her on all sides and also with a view to perform another marriage to her husband, they have created the problem and based on the Treatment Report, it has been found out that she has no problem for her child birth but her Husband has not taken any treatment but, he has been taking treatment for diabetes at Theni Government Hospital and Theni Welfare Hospital etc. The Respondent/Wife in her Maintenance Claim Petition, in paragraph 8, has clearly averred that the Revision Petitioner/Husband is very affectionate towards her. The Respondent/Wife in her Maintenance Claim Petition, in paragraph 8, has clearly averred that the Revision Petitioner/Husband is very affectionate towards her. But only on the evil advise of her husband's family, the Revision petitioner/Husband has been subjecting her to all sorts of troubles and further her husband's family people have decided to perform the marriage of her husband with one Anandhi of Chinnamanoor and as a result thereof, the Revision Petitioner has started hating her and that the said Anandhi is a widow and presently, the Revision Petitioner has compelled her to give consent for Divorce Petition filed by him and also in this regard, her husband is going to her parents' house at Allinagaram and threatened the family people. Ultimately, the Respondent/Wife has claimed the monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- from the Revision Petitioner/Husband towards her Food, Clothing, Residence, Medical Expenses and other Expenses. 22. It is to be pointed out that the proceedings for maintenance are in the form of Civil Proceedings, although the criminal process is employed for the avowed object of summary and speedy disposal of such matter based on the society's paramount interest. Chapter IX of the Criminal Procedure Code is a self-contained one. Undoubtedly, the findings of the Learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code are not final and the parties concerned are in Law are at liberty to agitate their rights before the competent civil forum. The procedure laid down under Chapter IX of the Criminal Procedure Code is aimed at to achieve social justice and as such it is different from the procedure to be adopted in respect of a punitive trial envisage in the later part of the Criminal procedure Code. No wonder, the jurisdiction of a Magistrate is not one of criminal jurisdiction. 23. An order under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be passed if only an individual is possessing 'sufficient means' but neglects to maintain his wife or child, etc. The term 'means' figuring in Section 125 of the Criminal procedure Code does not speak of Rule, property or define employment. Moreover, 'means' of the husband does not refer to the tangible property or his sources of income, but also takes within its fold, his status, capacity and as well as the potentiality. Also, a husband need not starve himself with a view to maintain his wife. Moreover, 'means' of the husband does not refer to the tangible property or his sources of income, but also takes within its fold, his status, capacity and as well as the potentiality. Also, a husband need not starve himself with a view to maintain his wife. The capacity to earn/ability to earn requires more than a fit state of either body or mind. It also signifies an opportunity to earn, education or experience and many a time, finance, push and pull. The husband cannot take a plea that he has no sufficient means to maintain his wife. An able bodied and healthy person should be taken to possess 'means; to support his wife. If the husband has the capacity to earn, then, he cannot wriggle out of his liability to maintain his wife. Undoubtedly, the concept 'sufficient means' is not limited to pecuniary resources. 24. The neglect or refusal will speak of more than mere omission or failure. The words 'neglects' or 'refuses to maintain' is to be adopted a lenient and liberal view. Ordinarily, if the husband drives out the wife from his house and later, it is found that she is living with her parents, it is a proof of neglect to maintain on the part of the husband and as a logical corollary, the Wife would be entitled to claim maintenance. 25. That apart, the word 'refuse' speaks of a failure to maintain or a denial or allegation to maintain after the demand, but the word 'neglect' refers to a default or omission in the absence of a demand. In law, refusal or neglect may be inferred from the implied conduct of a party and it is not necessary that there should be a refusal in strict sense. Even a long duration of separation, without any acceptable material to show any bonafide attempt has been made on the part of the husband to convince his wife to live with him will be suffice to drawn inference of neglect/refusal to maintain. 26. The term 'unable to maintain herself' speaks of misconceived to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband. Further, the said term is not meant that the wife should be absolute destitute and should be on the street, beg and be in tattered clothes as per decision ABDUL SALIM VS NAJIMA BEGUM {1980 Crl.L.J – 232 (All.)}. 26. The term 'unable to maintain herself' speaks of misconceived to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband. Further, the said term is not meant that the wife should be absolute destitute and should be on the street, beg and be in tattered clothes as per decision ABDUL SALIM VS NAJIMA BEGUM {1980 Crl.L.J – 232 (All.)}. Further, if the wife comes out with a plea that she is unable to maintain herself, then, that it is enough which in turn will shift the burden on the husband to establish otherwise. The claim of the wife that she is 'unable to maintain herself' is to be judged by a Court of Law, after recording the evidence of the parties. The term 'wife' in Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code refers to a legally wedded wife. Even a woman who has obtained a divorce by mutual consent, will be included under the term 'wife' in the considered opinion of this Court. An habitual beating is not necessary. Even a single incident is a good ground enabling the wife to live separately from the husband as opined by this Court. If the husband treats the wife cruelly, then she is entitled to live separately. Generally a person cannot contract out of his statutory obligation to pay the maintenance. Further more, the words 'refusing to live with the husband without a sufficient cause and are living separately by mutual consent in Sub-Section (4) and (5) of Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code are applicable to wife, whose marriage is subsisting and not in the case of wife as defined in Explanation (b) of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as per decision VELUKUTTI Vs. PRASANNA KUMARI {(1985 Cr.L.J – 1588 (Ker.)}. To put it succinctly, the ingredients of Section 125 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code are attracted only when the wife is ordinarily bound to live with the husband at the time of claiming maintenance and yet refuses to live with him without any sufficient cause. The conduct of the wife at the time of departure/leaving the house is totally irrelevant and the Learned Judicial Magistrate must bestow his attention to the facts and circumstances which float on the surface on the date of passing the order on Petition/Application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the aggrieved party concerned. The conduct of the wife at the time of departure/leaving the house is totally irrelevant and the Learned Judicial Magistrate must bestow his attention to the facts and circumstances which float on the surface on the date of passing the order on Petition/Application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the aggrieved party concerned. In order to fit in a case within the purview of Section 125 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is to be established that the parties are not only living separately but they have agreed to live separately. Ordinarily, living separately by mutual consent ought to be the outcome of the desire of both parties independently, reached by both of them. It should not be the result of circumstance brought about by any one of them. 27. Under the new Criminal Procedure Code, the wife is entitled to claim maintenance from the husband. An agreement not to claim maintenance is contrary to public policy and therefore, it is unenforceable in law. Consequently, the claim of maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not prohibited. By virtue of an agreement between the husband and wife where by the wife relinquishes her right to claim maintenance is a clear case of violating the public policy. Also, it cannot be used as a just and a valid defence in a proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 28. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to point out that 'mutual consent' means consent on the part of Husband and Wife to live apart, no matter what the circumstances may be as per decision RAM SARAN DAS Vs. MST RAM PIARI (1937 All – 430). 29. 28. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to point out that 'mutual consent' means consent on the part of Husband and Wife to live apart, no matter what the circumstances may be as per decision RAM SARAN DAS Vs. MST RAM PIARI (1937 All – 430). 29. Coming to the facts of the present case on hand, this Court points out that the Respondent, in her evidence as P.W.1 has clearly deposed that she has not given birth to a child and the Revision Petitioner/Husband has at the instance of hearing the words of his Mother, Brother Suresh, Brother's Nephew has beat her, demanding her consent for the second marriage and when she has refused, she has been driven out by them from the Husband's house and in this regard, she has lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Theni on 13/1/2007 but the Police has not taken any action and subsequent to her complaint, her Husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.17 of 2006 on the file of the Sub-Court, Periyakulam, seeking divorce. Therefore, it is clear that the Respondent/Wife has a genuine and clear sufficient cause enabling her to part company with her husband and to live separately, more so, to live with her parents, (notwithstanding the fact that she has admitted the Letter Ex.R.1 wherein she has categorically stated that she is not liking the life) obviously to live in the company of the Revision Petitioner. Even though, the said Ex.R.1 Letter is voluntary, it cannot be said by any imagination that the Respondent/Wife is not entitled to claim maintenance. Only because of her sufferings, she has experienced at the hands of the Revision Petitioner and relatives, she has been driven to the necessity of giving Ex.R.1 Letter and that cannot be pressed into service by the Revision Petitioner/Husband as a just and valid defence to thwart the plea of maintenance claimed by the Respondent/Wife. There is no two opinion of the fact that in Ex.R.1 Letter, she has also gone to the extent of stating that she is not liking to lead a life and therefore, she is going to live with her parents and kith and kin etc. In Ex.R.1 Letter (written in Tamil), conspicuously, date has not been mentioned and two witnesses viz., S.Porkodi, W/o. R.Sankar of Theni and Malarkodi, W/o. P.Murugesan, Theni are found. In Ex.R.1 Letter (written in Tamil), conspicuously, date has not been mentioned and two witnesses viz., S.Porkodi, W/o. R.Sankar of Theni and Malarkodi, W/o. P.Murugesan, Theni are found. Although, R.W.1 Husband (Revision Petitioner) before the trial Court has deposed in his evidence that he is ready to examine these two witnesses found in Ex.R.1 Letter, yet they have not been examined before the trial Court on the side of the Husband. In short, Ex.R.1 Letter cannot be put against the Respondent/Wife to defeat her maintenance claim from the Revision Petitioner/Husband, as opined by this Court. 30. Furthermore, one cannot loose sight of an important fact that the Revision Petitioner/Husband has filed Divorce Petition H.M.O.P.No. 17 of 2006 on the file of the Sub-Court, Periyakulam and the same is reported to be pending. Till a divorce decree is granted and has become final, the Respondent/Wife continues to be the Wife of the Revision Petitioner/Husband. Moreover, under the term 'wife' even a divorced wife will come under the purview. Till a divorced Wife gets remarried, she is entitled to claim maintenance. The fact that the Respondent/Wife has been turned out by the Petitioner/Husband and the people from her Husband's house and thereafter, when she is living with her parents, it is a clear case for the Respondent/Wife to claim maintenance. Although Ex.R.1 Letter has been written by the Respondent/Wife (as admitted by her evidence in Ex.R.1), yet one has to see the totality the attendant circumstances which has forced her/necessitated her to dislike her right to lead life in the company of her Husband (Revision Petitioner). The circumstances narrated by P.W.1 in her evidence has driven her to a situation that it is no longer possible for her to continue to live in her husband's house with dignity, prestige and self respect and in short, a situation has been created in the husband's family which according to her is unbearable for her to live with dignity and therefore, in the present case, the overt action of the Revision Petitioner/Husband and her people has deliberately made the Respondent/Wife to dislike the life to lead. Only, under such circumstances, Ex.R.1 has come into existence. Only, under such circumstances, Ex.R.1 has come into existence. In short, one cannot go by the mere wordings found in Ex.R.1 Letter to say that the Respondent/Wife has clearly stated that she has married the Revision Petitioner and that she is not liking to lead life with him and therefore, she is proceeding to live with her parents and kith and kin. The stray sentences or admissions referred to supra in Ex.R.1 cannot be termed as tacit admission and in reality, one has to look into the entire facts and circumstances encircling the case which made the wife to give Ex.R.1 Letter. 31. Be that as it may, in the instant case on hand, even though the Respondent/Wife has claimed a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/-from the Revision Petitioner/Husband towards her Food Expenses, Medical Expenses etc., and this Court taking in reality the Respondent/Wife, totally cannot ignore Ex.R.1 (since she has contributed it out of her own will/volition voluntarily), notwithstanding of the fact that Ex.R.1 cannot be put against the Respondent/Wife to claim maintenance and also this Court bearing in mind an another important fact that it is the duty of the Revision Petitioner/Husband to maintain the Respondent/Wife, on the basis of Equity, Fair Play, Good Conscience and even as a matter of Prudence, directs the Revision Petitioner/Husband to pay a monthly equitable sum of Rs.750/- (Rupees Seven Hundred and Fifty only), (which is not either an extravagant or luxurious one), (less amount paid if any), from the date of filing of M.C. Petition till date from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which it is open to the Respondent/Wife to take appropriate proceedings before the trial Court for enforcement of the order of this Court under Section 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Liberty is granted to the Respondent/Wife to withdraw a sum of Rs.7,500/-(Rupees Seven thousand and Five Hundred only) which has been deposited by the Revision Petitioner (Husband) before the trial Court in M.C.No.18 of 2007, by filing necessary payment out Petition and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the said Petition by adhering to the principles of natural Justice as expeditiously as possible. 32. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed in the above terms. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 1 of 2008, 2 and 3 of 2012 are closed.