JUDGMENT Rule. With the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith. 2. This Criminal revision is directed against the Judgment and order dated 19/11/2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, South Goa, Margao in Criminal Revision Application No. 29/2012. The applicant/wife has filed application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate First Class for maintenance bearing No.2/M/2011/C. The said maintenance application was allowed after recording the evidence of the applicant/wife and her father and the respondent was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month on or before every 7th day of every month. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent/husband filed criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge allowed the said revision and quashed and set aside the order of maintenance passed by the learned JMFC. Hence, this criminal revision application. 3. The marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 9/11/2009 as per the Muslim rites and ceremony at Kasai District, Kushi Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The applicant and respondent stayed together in the house of the respondent along with family members of the respondent. The marriage was consummated and after few days, the respondent as per the case of the applicant, the respondent/husband changed his behavior. There was a demand of dowry not only from his family members but also from him. She was harassed and assaulted by the respondent/husband. The family members of the respondent/husband also contributed to the harassment. To fulfill the constant monetary demand the father of the applicant/wife paid Rs.3.00 lakhs in cash to the respondent and also purchased L.C.D T.V. However, the matter was not settled. The demand continued so also the harassment. The applicant/wife thereafter felt that it was not possible for her to continue to stay with him and due to harassment, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial house and she returned to her father's house at Vasco-da-Gama-Goa. She again went to her house, but however, she suffered harassment and therefore came back and started residing with her father. It is the case of the applicant that she is not working and is totally dependent on her the respondent/husband. At present, she is residing with her father and therefore she applied for maintenance under section 125 of Cr. P.C. 4. It is the case of the applicant that she is not working and is totally dependent on her the respondent/husband. At present, she is residing with her father and therefore she applied for maintenance under section 125 of Cr. P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant/wife has submitted that the applicant/wife has filed application under section 125 of the Cr. P.C. in which she was granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from respondent/husband. Similarly, she has filed a proceeding under section 22 of the Domestic Violence Act and prayed for maintenance and in the said matter also, she was awarded amount of Rs.10,000/- towards maintenance. Learned counsel submitted that against both the orders, the respondent/husband has filed revision applications before the Sessions Court and both the revisions applications were allowed by setting aside the orders passed by the respective JMFC granting maintenance in both the proceedings i.e. under section 125 of C.P.C and so also under section 22 of the D.V. Act. He submitted that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is incorrect and bad in law as the applicant/wife is deprived of her right to have maintenance from her husband. Learned counsel submitted that the applicant/wife though she is B.Sc in Botany with MBA, her qualification in MBA is not from a recognized university. At present, she is jobless. It is his submission that though she is finding out a job, it is not easy to get a job in Goa. He further submitted that prior to her marriage, she was working and earning some money, however, the said job was in Bangalore that is far from her father's house and it is not possible for her to go there and get job. He further submitted that on the other hand the financial position of the respondent/husband is sound. He is a professor in the College and he is drawing salary of Rs.45,000/- per month. He further submitted that he does not have any responsibility and therefore, the order passed by the learned Sessions Court of cancelling the amount of the maintenance is erroneous and is to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge that the applicant/wife has left the house of the respondent/husband without any cause and on her own is correct. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge that the applicant/wife has left the house of the respondent/husband without any cause and on her own is correct. He further submitted that as the applicant herself went away and left the house without any justifiable cause, she is not entitled to get maintenance from the respondent/husband. He further submitting that though he is earning Rs.40,000/- per month, he is residing with his parents. His father is retired from Liberty Showroom. He has two younger brothers who are studying and one unmarried sister. He further submits that the respondent/husband has purchased one Alto car on loan and therefore is required to pay the monthly premium which is quite high. He submits that the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that he is getting salary of Rs.45,000/- per month is not correct but he is getting gross salary of Rs.40,628/- and the Net salary drawn by him is Rs.26,105/- per month. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the respondent/husband is ready for reconciliation and to live married life with the applicant/wife. 6. Learned counsel has disputed the capacity to work and earn of the applicant/wife. He submitted that the applicant/wife is highly qualified. She has acquired degree in Science faculty in Botany from Goa University and her MBA is also from ICEI National college that is a recognized University. In support of his submission, he relied on the judgment of “Damanreet Kaur Vs. Indermeet Juneja and anr.” from Delhi High Court dated 14/5/2012 in CRL REV.P. 344/2011 in which the Court has refused to grant maintenance to well qualified able bodied wife and holding that she is capable to maintain herself. 7. Perused judgments of both the Courts, so also the evidence tendered by the applicant. In the evidence, the applicant/wife has stated that initially her husband was good with her. However, there was a demand of money from him and also from his family members. 7. Perused judgments of both the Courts, so also the evidence tendered by the applicant. In the evidence, the applicant/wife has stated that initially her husband was good with her. However, there was a demand of money from him and also from his family members. She has specifically mentioned in her evidence that her father came to Haryana and withdrew amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs from his account and handed over the said cash to her husband, so also with a view to pacify the family members of the respondent/husband, her father purchased a L.C.D TV of Rs.32,500/- to satisfy the demand of the respondent/husband and his family members. She has stated in the examination-in-chief that she was assaulted by her husband and therefore she was compelled to leave the matrimonial house in May 2010. She has stated that thereafter again in June 2010 with a view to keep her marriage intact, she went to Haryana and tried to reside with her husband. However, the harassment continued and therefore, she returned to her father's house and did not go back. 8. The lady was cross-examined by the counsel for the respondent. On the contrary, in the cross-examination, she has stated that she spoke with respondent/husband after she started staying in Goa, initially 7-8 times but during that communication, the respondent never asked her to come back and join the matrimonial house. Considering this evidence it cannot be said that the applicant has left her matrimonial house without any justifiable cause. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant/wife that the respondent did not file reply to the maintenance application but the applicant was cross-examined by his counsel. 9. On the point of capacity to maintain, it was submitted that she being well educated can work and earn her livelihood. These submissions are based on the ration laid down in the case of “Damanreet Kaur Vs. Indermeet Juneja and anr.” (supra) decided by the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court. The Single Judge in the said case has taken support of the case of “Smt. Mamta Vs. Jaiswal “reported in 2000 (3) MPLJ 100 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. In the said case of “Damanreet Kaur”, though the maintenance was rejected to the wife, amount of Rs.10,000/- granted by the Sessions Judge to the child was not disturbed. The Single Judge in the said case has taken support of the case of “Smt. Mamta Vs. Jaiswal “reported in 2000 (3) MPLJ 100 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. In the said case of “Damanreet Kaur”, though the maintenance was rejected to the wife, amount of Rs.10,000/- granted by the Sessions Judge to the child was not disturbed. Learned counsel for the applicant to meet these submissions on the point of capacity to maintain relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in “Vimal Vs. Sukumar Anna Patil and anr.” reported in 1981 CRI. L. J. 210 (1). The Single Judge of this Court has taken a view that the provisions under section 125 are intended to fulfill a social purpose. The learned Judge has in paragraph 14 of this Judgment has reproduced the observations of the Supreme Court in “Ramesh Chander Kaushal V. Veena Kushal” reported in [ AIR 1978 Sc 1807 ], which is reproduced as follows: “The expression “unable to maintain” only connotes that the wife has no other means or source to maintain herself. It has nothing to do with her potential earning capacity. If the interpretation suggested by Shri Rege is accepted then the whole provision will become unworkable and will result in defeating the very object of the legislature. It will involve rovering and endless inquiry about her physical ability, capacity as well as avenues and opportunities available to her for earning her livelihood.” 10. Thus, the Supreme Court has explained the term “capacity to maintain” and view taken by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court is proper exposition of law. On this background, the demand of the maintenance made by the applicant/wife is to be considered. The applicant/wife has given admission in her cross-examination that before her marriage, she was working in Bangalore. However, there is no suggestion or any fact is not brought on record by the respondent/husband that how much salary, she was earning at the relevant time. Though she was holding a degree in B.Sc from a recognized University, whether her degree in MBA is from a recognized university or not is doubtful. After marriage admittedly, she had left the job. She was not doing any job when she was staying with the respondent/husband. After that she returned and started staying in Goa. Though she was holding a degree in B.Sc from a recognized University, whether her degree in MBA is from a recognized university or not is doubtful. After marriage admittedly, she had left the job. She was not doing any job when she was staying with the respondent/husband. After that she returned and started staying in Goa. At present, she is not having any job though it is fairly informed to the Court that she is trying to find a job as she is educationally qualified lady. Thus it appears that the applicant/wife is not intending to sit idle at home. However, it is necessary to consider that after marriage, a woman leaves her father's house and she starts living with her husband. In this case, the applicant shifted from Goa and continued to leave with her husband in Haryana which is quite far from Goa. Our society being a patriarchal society, generally a woman is dependent on her husband and therefore she is protected under Article 15 and Article 16 of the Constitution and so also under the relevant Laws and provisions like under section 125 of Cr.P.C. or of the Domestic Violence Act. As the applicant/wife is not earning at all, she has right to be maintained from the husband. Thus, the view taken by the learned Single Judge that as she is highly qualified and therefore is able to maintain herself and so no maintenance was granted to her is not a correct view and is required to set aside. 11. While fixing the amount of the maintenance, it is necessary to ascertain the financial position of the husband. In the present case, the respondent/husband is a professor drawing Rs.40,000/- per month as a gross salary. The applicant has produced the salary certificate of the respondent/husband which shows his take home salary is Rs.26,105/-. It is argued by the counsel for the respondent/husband that the respondent has to pay tax so also he has to pay premium of the car loan which he has purchased three years back. It was also submitted that the respondent is staying with his family where and has to shoulder the responsibility of his parents, one brother and one sister. The document shows that he is getting net salary of Rs.26,105/- per month. The couple does not have an issue. It was also submitted that the respondent is staying with his family where and has to shoulder the responsibility of his parents, one brother and one sister. The document shows that he is getting net salary of Rs.26,105/- per month. The couple does not have an issue. The father, though retired and all are staying together, it cannot be said that the father, mother, brother and sister are entirely depended on the respondent/husband. Undoubtedly, the respondent must be sharing some financial responsibility of his family as they are staying together. So also though, this argument that has he has to pay premium towards the car loan and therefore he cannot be asked to pay the maintenance cannot be accepted and is not convincing. To pay reasonable maintenance is his legal obligation. Considering this and the financial condition of the respondent/husband the amount of Rs.5000/- per month towards the maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. is an appropriate amount. He is also directed to pay the arrears from the date of filing of the application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month and the amount paid under section 125 is to be adjusted towards the arrears. The following order is passed: (a) The respondent/husband shall pay Rs.5000/- per month to the applicant/wife on or before every 7th day of every month. (b) The respondent/husband shall pay arrears of the maintenance Rs.5000/- per month from the date of filing of the maintenance application. (c) If any amount is deposited by the respondent/husband in the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. towards the maintenance then that amount is to be adjusted towards the arrears.