Order : This revision is directed against the order dated 04.05.2013 pssed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka in Cr. M.P.NO.69/2009 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C whereby the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/-p.m. to the O.P.-wife from the date of the filing of the petition i.e. from 16.11.2009. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order and submitted that O.P.-wife has admitted in her evidence as P.W.1 that before filing of the divorce case, a panchayati was held wherein it was settled that Rs.20,000/-would be given to her as future maintenance and ornaments, utensils etc. shall be returned to her. In her evidence she has admitted that she was paid Rs.4,500/-. It is submitted that the said panchanama dated 23.08.2003 (Ext.1 of Matrimonial(Divorce) Suit no.10 of 2005) was brought on record which is as Annexure-1 of this application. It is argued that after the divorce, as per the panchayati in the year 2003, the O.P.-wife did not reside with the petitioner whereafter she filed a case being Sikaripara P.S.Case No.12/2008 under Section 498A IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. That the petitioner had faced the trial and he was acquitted in the said case. Certified copy of the judgment was marked as Ext.A in the court below. That prior to institution of the aforesaid case O.P.-wife had also filed Matrimonial(Divorce) Suit no.10/2005 on allegation of impotency as a ground for divorce and by order dated 24.05.2007 the trial court had directed the O.P.-wife to resume her conjugal life but she did not approach the petitioner or file any application for restitution of conjugal rights. It is contended that the said cases were filed on frivolous grounds and this reflects on the conduct of the O.P.-wife, that she is bent upon harassing the petitioner in one way or the other. 3. It is argued that the impugned order has been passed without considering and appreciating the fact that O.P.-wife has obtained divorce in the panchayati on payment of Rs.20,000/-as full and final settlement. That the petitioner is not of sound mental health and is incapable of earning or providing any maintenance rather he is dependent on his elder brother. On the above ground learned counsel has contended that the impugned order is fit to be set aside. 4. That the petitioner is not of sound mental health and is incapable of earning or providing any maintenance rather he is dependent on his elder brother. On the above ground learned counsel has contended that the impugned order is fit to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P.-wife has contended that it would be evident from the evidence discussed by the learned court below that this petitioner examined himself as O.P.W.5 and he has stated that panchayati took place in August, 2003 and Rs.20,000/-was paid to the O.P.-wife and other articles were taken by her but he has admitted that there was no formal order of divorce passed by any competent court. That in paras 11 and 12 of his deposition he has admitted that he cannot say as to when he had paid the money and handed over the articles to O.P./wife, or who were the members present in the said panchayati. That the witnesses examined on behalf of O.P.-wife have categorically stated that O.P. is residing with her father and is dependent on him and it is her statement that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home though she has admitted that there was panchayati, but in the said panchayati certain conditions were imposesd which have not been fulfilled by the petitioner. The witnesses have stated that the petitioner never visited or enquired about the well being of O.P.. These facts are supported by the witnesses examined on behalf of O.P.-wife. Elder brother of the petitioner, O.P.W4, has admitted that the marriage of O.P. and the petitioner has not been dissolved by any decree of divorce neither could he say the date when the marriage of the O.P. was dissolved by the Panchayat. That the acquittal of the petitioner in the case under Section 498A IPC was on the ground that the said case was instituted on account of non-fulfillment of certain conditions which were enumerated in the panchanama and this shows that since the conditions were not fulfilled there was no ground for making out an offence under Section 498A IPC. It is argued that the petitioner has not paid a single farthing since the date of passing of the order granting the maintenance. 5. Heard. On perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that the trial court has discussed and analysed the evidence of both the parties. It is argued that the petitioner has not paid a single farthing since the date of passing of the order granting the maintenance. 5. Heard. On perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that the trial court has discussed and analysed the evidence of both the parties. The Panchanama which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been filed as Annexure-1. From perusal of the same it is evident that there was no payment of any 3. money rather the said panchanama was prepared on the condition that an amount of Rs.20,000/-would be paid by February,2004. The petitioner has examined O.P.W.4, the witness of the said panchanama, who is the elder brother of the petitioner, namely, Lakhi Narayan Mandal, and O.P.W.4 has nowhere stated that money was paid rather he has admitted that the marriage of the petitioner and O.P. was not dissolved by any competent court and in para 14 of his deposition he has stated that he cannot say the day and date when the marriage was dissolved by the panchayat. Another signatory to the panchanama is O.P.W.2-Kishore Prasad Sah. He has also admitted that there was no formal divorce from any court. 6. It is amply clear that there is nothing on record to show that the conditions enumerated In the panchanama was fulfilled by the petitioner. Even assuming that O.P.-wife had obtained a divorce then also she cannot be denied maintenance as per Explanation (b) of Section 125 Cr.P.C wherein the expression “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by ,or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. The refusal of maintenance can be on the ground when the wife is living in adultery or without any sufficient reason she refused to live with the husband or they are living separately by mutual consent. 7. In the instant case, the petitioner has not been able to establish the fact that he had fulfilled the terms and conditions of the panchanama prepared in the Panchayat. There is no evidence to establish the fact that O.P./wife had agreed to reside separately on mutual consent or refused to reside with the petitioner despite efforts made by him. On the contrary, witnesses on behalf of O.P. have clearly stated that this petitioner had never visited the O.P.-wife and O.P.W.3-Ravilal Mandal has admitted that O.P. is his sister-in-law. There is no evidence to establish the fact that O.P./wife had agreed to reside separately on mutual consent or refused to reside with the petitioner despite efforts made by him. On the contrary, witnesses on behalf of O.P. have clearly stated that this petitioner had never visited the O.P.-wife and O.P.W.3-Ravilal Mandal has admitted that O.P. is his sister-in-law. He has further admitted that O.P. is residing in her father's house since 1995. This aspect has been considered and taken into account by the learned court below as the petitioner's averment in the show cause is that the O.P. had obtained divorce from him on 23.08.2003. The petitioner's witnesses have themselves admitted that petitioner never provided food, clothing or any expenses to the O.P.-wife and her father is providing her with her daily needs. 8. It is well settled that the provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a social legislation to ensure social justice whereby the dependent wife and children, parents or any person, whom a person is legally and morally bound to provide maintenance are not forced to live a life of starvation or beggary. It is the moral, social and legal obligation of such person to provide the maintenance to the dependent. 9. In view of the findings of the court below and the discussions made hereinabove, this Court does not find any cogent reason warranting interference with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, this revision is hereby dismissed. Consequently, I.A.NO.8122/2013 is also dismissed.