JUDGMENT Brij Kishore Dube, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') is preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 23.08.2012 passed in Criminal Revision No. 168/2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, District Morena affirming the order dated 23.06.2012 passed in M.J.C. No. 95/2009 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and Gram Nayalaya, Ambah, District Morena whereby an application under Section 125 of the Code filed by the respondent herein/wife was allowed and the petitioner herein/husband was directed to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Background facts may be summarized as under:- (a) The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 14.02.2006 as per Hindu rites and customs at Ambah, District Morena, thereafter, they resided together for a short span of about 12 months. (b) On 07.02.2008, the proceedings for grant of an amount of Rs. 17,000/- per month as maintenance were initiated by the respondent herein, Smt. Shilpa Jain (hereinafter referred to as 'wife') against the petitioner herein, Anil Kumar Jain (hereinafter referred to as the 'husband'). According to her, right from inception of the marital relationship, she had been subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and her husbands' family members in regard to demand of dowry. They also compelled her to take divorce and insisted to sign on the divorce papers. The elder brother of her husband who is unmarried and an advocate expected from her to fulfill his desire which she refused and due to which on his instigation, she was subjected to harassment. Any how, with the help of police on 18.02.2007, she was taken to her parental home by her father. Her husband did not maintain her. She has no independent source of income. She is unable to maintain herself, however, the husband is having hand-some income i.e., salary of Rs. 18,000/- per month as he is working in the Bank of India at Sehore, apart from that, he is getting Rs. 6,000/- per month as rent from the flat and Rs. 10,000/- per month from share market by doing business. (c) In turn, the husband specifically denied the allegations in regard to cruelty and dowry harassment. Attention was also invited to the fact that no complaint regarding alleged ill-treatment on account of dowry demand was made at an earlier occasion. 6,000/- per month as rent from the flat and Rs. 10,000/- per month from share market by doing business. (c) In turn, the husband specifically denied the allegations in regard to cruelty and dowry harassment. Attention was also invited to the fact that no complaint regarding alleged ill-treatment on account of dowry demand was made at an earlier occasion. As per his version, the wife left matrimonial home voluntarily and residing separately at her parental house without any sufficient reason. He tried several times to take her back to her matrimonial house but she refused to come back. She is well educated and is having sufficient source of income while he is getting only salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month after deductions. He has to look after his mother, unmarried brother and sisters, therefore, prayed that the application of the wife for maintenance may be rejected. (d) The wife examined herself to prove her pleadings by entering into the witness-box and produced the relevant documents, however, neither the husband has been examined himself nor produced any witness to prove his pleadings. (e) Upon the critical appraisal of the entire evidence on record, learned Magistrate found that the wife is unable to maintain herself whereas the husband has sufficient means to maintain his wife. The husband refused to pay the maintenance, therefore, proceeded to award maintenance, a monthly sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the date of filing of the application. (f) Being aggrieved thereof, the husband preferred revision before the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court vide the impugned order dated 23.08.2012 affirmed the order of maintenance granted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambah, District Morena, hence, this petition. 2. Shri Rajesh Kumar Jain, Advocate who is elder brother of the husband appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein strenuously contended that the wife is not only residing separately without any sufficient cause but she is also capable to maintain herself. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Court below wrongly determined that the husband neglects or refused to pay the maintenance, as from the evidence it is clear that the wife left her matrimonial house voluntarily and went to her parental house. She is well-educated and able to earn and maintain herself but the Court below erroneously determined that she is unable to maintain herself. She is well-educated and able to earn and maintain herself but the Court below erroneously determined that she is unable to maintain herself. Regarding the earning of the husband, the learned Court below wrongly determined without legal proof that the husband is capable to maintain his wife. The evidence led by the wife is without any material on record. The learned Court below further wrongly held that the husband has not proved his pleadings. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the following decisions:- (i) Mamta Jaiswal (Smt.) v. Rajesh Jaiswal, 2000 (2) VB 76; (ii) Dulichand v. Prahlad Singh, 1983 MPWN 259; (iii) Deb Narayan Halder v. Smt. Anushree Halder, AIR 2003 SC 3174 ; (iv) R.P. Singh v. Narmada Prasad, 1998 (II) MPWN 95 ; (v) Shiv Kumar Yadav v. Smt. Santoshi Yadav, 2004 (2) MPHT 61 (CG); (vi) Anil Kachwaha v. Smt. Sunita Kachwaha and others, 2008 (4) MPHT 193 . 3. In response, Shri Pradeep Katare, learned counsel for the respondent argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that the petition is not maintainable as the respondent has not paid even a single pie in spite of the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and order dated 28.09.2012 passed by this Court. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The main point for consideration is whether the Courts below have committed any illegality in awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent/wife? 6. As cautioned by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajathi v. C. Ganesan, (1996) 6 SCC 326, it is not necessary to examine the entire evidence threadbare in exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code in a case under Section 125 of the Code as only a prima-facie view of the matter is taken and it would not be desirable to enter into the minute details of the matrimonial disputes between the parties. The relevant paras of the judgment reads as under:- 11. In the present case, the High Court minutely examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that the wife was living separately without any reasonable cause and that she was able to maintain herself. The relevant paras of the judgment reads as under:- 11. In the present case, the High Court minutely examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that the wife was living separately without any reasonable cause and that she was able to maintain herself. All this the High Court did in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code which powers are not a substitute for a second revision under sub-section (3) of Section 397 of the Code. The very fact that the inherent powers conferred on the High Court are vast would mean that these are circumscribed and could be invoked only on certain set principles. 12. It was not necessary for the High Court to examine the whole evidence threadbare to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Rather in a case under Section 125 of the Code the trial court is to take a prima facie view of the matter and it is not necessary for the Court to go into the matrimonial disputes between the parties in detail. ............. 7. It is not in dispute that the marriage of the respondent was solemnized with the petitioner on 14.02.2006 at Ambah, District Morena. It is also not in dispute that the respondent/wife is living separately with her husband w.e.f. 18.02.2007 at her parental house at Ambah. 8. To prove the case, wife examined herself before the Court. According to her (A.W. 1), she was married with Anil Kumar Jain on 14.02.2006 and thereafter, she went to her in-laws house and discharged the matrimonial obligations but she has been maltreated and humiliated by her husband and husbands' family members, not only for bringing insufficient dowry but also due to demand of more dowry. She categorically stated the instances of cruelty and harassment in her deposition. She further stated that in the month of December her father came to her in-laws house to take her, but she was not allowed to go with him. She was compelled to take divorce. She was also pressurized to the effect that unless and until she put her signature on the divorce papers, she could not be allowed to go her parental house, thereafter, on 17.02.2007 her father again came to her in-laws house to take her. She was compelled to take divorce. She was also pressurized to the effect that unless and until she put her signature on the divorce papers, she could not be allowed to go her parental house, thereafter, on 17.02.2007 her father again came to her in-laws house to take her. The earlier episode was again repeated by her in-laws family members but any how with the intervention of some relatives and with the help of police on 18.02.2007, she was taken by her father to her parental house and since then i.e., 18.02.2007 she is residing at her parental house, Ambah, District Morena. It is further stated by her that her husband is not maintaining her and no attempts have been made to take/bring her back to her matrimonial house by her husband. She is doing nothing and has no means of income. She is unable to maintain herself. On the contrary, her husband is working in Bank of India at Sehore and he was getting salary Rs. 18,000/- per month at the time of her marriage. Nothing could be elicited in her cross-examination so as to suggest that she was interested in obtaining the maintenance on absolutely false grounds. 9. In Rajathi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that the statement of wife that she was unable to maintain herself would be enough and it would be for the husband to prove otherwise. It is further ruled that the words of "unable to maintain herself" 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 the desertion to survive somehow. Section 125 of the Code is enacted on the premise that it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, children and parents. It will, therefore, be for him to show that he has no sufficient means to discharge his obligation and that he did not neglect or refuse to maintain them or any one of them. 10. The petitioner/husband neither examined himself nor examined any witness to prove his case and discharge the obligation. 11. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 23.06.2012 directed the husband to pay the maintenance to his wife but the same has not been paid. This Court vide order dated 28.09.2012 directed the petitioner/husband to pay Rs. 10. The petitioner/husband neither examined himself nor examined any witness to prove his case and discharge the obligation. 11. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 23.06.2012 directed the husband to pay the maintenance to his wife but the same has not been paid. This Court vide order dated 28.09.2012 directed the petitioner/husband to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to the respondent/wife but the petitioner has not complied with the order till date. Failure on the part of the husband to pay maintenance in view of the order of this Court amounts to 'negligence' as contemplated under Section 125 of the Code. 12. The wife is living separately since 18.02.2007 and the husband neither made efforts to bring her back nor filed any proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, therefore, the findings about husbands' negligence for refusal to maintain the wife are seems to be proper. 13. It is well settled that the wife is entitled to maintain a standard of living, which is neither luxurious nor penurious and also to lead a decent life yet, at par with the dignity of her husband. 14. In Anil Kachwaha (supra), the evidence showed that the wife left her matrimonial home without any justifiable ground and since then she was refusing to live with her husband without any sufficient reason. In such circumstances, this Court held that wife is not entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. In Mamta Jaiswal (Smt.) (supra), this Court while considering the scope of provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act observed that it has been enacted for needy persons, benefit cannot be asked by idle persons having capacity to earn. In Dulichand (supra), the suit of plaintiff was decreed which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court. In Second Appeal on questioning the judgment and decree on the ground that the defendants' evidence has not been taken into consideration by the Court below, this Court held that extraneous evidence can not be looked into in the absence of specific pleadings in that regard. In Deb Narayan Halder (supra), the Apex Court held that when wife left matrimonial home without any justifiable ground, then she would not be entitled to the grant of maintenance. In R.P. Singh (supra), this Court held that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offence. In Deb Narayan Halder (supra), the Apex Court held that when wife left matrimonial home without any justifiable ground, then she would not be entitled to the grant of maintenance. In R.P. Singh (supra), this Court held that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offence. Non cross-examination of witness by accused on the fact that the sample had not been made homogeneous is immaterial. In Shiv Kumar Yadav (supra), the husband of Santoshi Bai has been able to discharge his primary burden, but wife is residing separately without any sufficient reason and wife has not been able to establish and prove her case, therefore, it has been held that the finding of III Additional Sessions Judge that there is sufficient reason for wife to live separately is perverse and contrary to the evidence, which cannot be sustained. The facts and nature of the present case are completely distinguishable and therefore, the ratio of the aforesaid judgments has no application to the facts of this case. 15. Taking into consideration, all the material aspects of the case, including the social background and standard of living of the parties and rise in cost of living, the maintenance awarded by the Court below is not unjustified. In the result, no illegality, infirmity, impropriety or perversity is found in the impugned orders, hence, no interference in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code is called for. This petition is devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed.