JUDGMENT : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. 1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 05-10-2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Banswara, whereby he has allowed the respondent-wife's application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and ordered to the petitioner-husband to pay Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband argued that the respondent-wife is not entitled for maintenance as she without any valid reason deserted the petitioner-husband and she is capable to maintain herself. Counsel further argued that respondent-wife is not willing to make compliance of decree passed in favour of the petitioner-husband for restitution of conjugal rights. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the case of Smt. Rupa @ Nani v. Kanhaya Lal & Another, reported in 2007 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 67 and in the case of Smt. Chandu & Others v. Shobha Lal, reported in 2013 (2) CJ (Cri.) (Raj.) 881. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-wife argued that the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner-husband for offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. In appeal, the parties arrived at compromise and the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was also decided on the basis of said compromise. Thereafter the petitioner-husband by giving the beatings to the respondent-wife again expelled her from matrimonial house. There is justifiable ground to live separately from the petitioner- husband. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 05-10-2015 passed by the learned Family Court and also gone through the material available on record. 5. On the basis of the compromise between the parties, the petitioner-husband was acquitted for offence under Section 498-A IPC and an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed in terms of the said compromise. In her statement, the respondent-wife Smt. Sanehlata stated that because of harassment, she could not continue to reside in her matrimonial house. On 25-10-2002 after passing the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, she resided with the petitioner-husband but thereafter she was given ill-treatment and the husband expelled from her matrimonial house. 6. Learned Family Court while allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C has ordered to the petitioner-husband to pay the amount of Rs. On 25-10-2002 after passing the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, she resided with the petitioner-husband but thereafter she was given ill-treatment and the husband expelled from her matrimonial house. 6. Learned Family Court while allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C has ordered to the petitioner-husband to pay the amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife. It is not a case, where wife deserted the husband without any reasonable cause and refused to live with the husband. From evidence on record, it is established that with justifiable grounds the respondent-wife is living separately and she has no means of income to maintain herself. Further in the Case of Sunita Kachwaha & Others v. Anil Kachwaha, AIR 2015 SC 554 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while allowing the claim for maintenance of the wife held as under:- "The proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature. In a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. it is not necessary for the court to ascertain as to who was in wrong and the minute details of the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife need not be gone into. While so, the High Court was not right in going into the intricacies of dispute between the appellant-wife and the respondent and observing that the appellant-wife on her own left the matrimonial house and therefore she was not entitled to maintenance. Such observation by the High Court overlooks the evidence of appellant-wife and the factual findings, as recorded by the Family Court. Inability to maintain herself is the precondition for grant of maintenance to the wife. The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her. In her evidence, the appellant-wife has stated that only due to help of her retired parents and brothers, she is able to maintain herself and her daughters. Where the wife states that she has great hardships in maintaining herself and the daughters, while her husband's economic condition is quite good, the wife would be entitled to maintenance." In view of above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 05-10-2015 passed by the learned Family Court. The revision petition is without force. It is hereby dismissed. Stay petition also dismissed. Revision dismissed.