Judgment Sanjay Karol, J. Cr.M.P. (M) No. 239 of 2014 For the reasons set out in the application, delay in filing the revision petition, which stands satisfactorily explained, is condoned. The application is allowed and disposed of. 2. Revision Petition be registered. Cr. Revision No.100 of 2014 3. In this petition filed under Section 397 read with Sections 401 & 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner, who is the husband-respondent before the Court below, has assailed order dated 24.07.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in Criminal Appeal No. 51-Cr.A/10 of 2012 titled as Anjana Sharma Vs. Parkash. 4. The challenge is on the ground that lower appellate Court, while reversing the well reasoned findings of the trial Court, has not taken into consideration that (i) earlier application filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stood dismissed, and (ii) the applicant did not lead evidence to establish income of her husband. 5. Facts are not much in dispute. Undisputedly, Shri Parkash-present petitioner solemnized his marriage with Anjana Sharma-respondent herein sometime before 2012. 6. According to the respondent-wife, she was thrown out of her matrimonial house on account of various atrocities committed by her husband. The lower appellate Court while appreciating the evidence led by the parties concluded that petitioner was having 0.17 Bighas of land. Also, he is an able bodied person studying in Banaras. 7. The fact that an attempt was made on behalf of the wife to have the dispute amicably resolved, stands established on record. However, such attempt was scuttled by the present petitioner. Undisputedly, today relations between the parties are strained. 8. Insofar as, right and entitlement for compensation/ maintenance is concerned, one finds that the respondent-wife filed an application before the Magistrate. The application stood rejected primarily on the ground that wife was not able to prove the income of her husband. However, it has come on record that he owns land. Though, he is a permanent resident of State of Himachal Pradesh, but is studying at Banaras. He is spending money on himself. In law, he has a greater obligation to maintain his wife. It has come on record that wife was subjected to cruelties through the hands of her husband. As such, her claim for maintenance, in law, cannot be disputed. 9. He is spending money on himself. In law, he has a greater obligation to maintain his wife. It has come on record that wife was subjected to cruelties through the hands of her husband. As such, her claim for maintenance, in law, cannot be disputed. 9. True it is that lower appellate Court has not considered the factum of decision of earlier application filed under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, but in my considered view, dismissal of such application would have no bearing whatsoever, as the present proceedings stood initiated under a special enactment, and her right has to be independently considered on the basis of evidence led by the parties. Principle of resjudicata is inapplicable. With each passing day of cruelty, separate and distinct cause of action arises. 10. Insofar as, question of proof of income of the husband is concerned, it cannot be disputed that he owns immoveable property within the State of Himachal Pradesh. In law, he has an obligation to maintain his wife and while awarding a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month, Court below has taken into account that a small child born out of the wedlock is also to be maintained. Petitioner’s income has been taken as Rs.5,000/- per month. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that even a daily wage worker is earning more than Rs.3,000/- per month. As such, present petition is dismissed, as also the pending application(s), if any.