ORDER 1. This revision under section 19(4) Family Courts Act, 1984 read with section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) has been filed by the applicant/wife against the order dated 21.12.2010, passed in M.J.C. No.361/2009, by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, wherein learned Family Court rejected the application for grant of maintenance amount. The brown fox jumps over the laxy dog. 2. The applicant had filed an application under the provisions of section 125 of the Code, contending that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 13.5.1952 at Barela, Jabalpur as per the Hindu rites and rituals. Six sons and one daughter were born out of the wedlock and all children got married and are living happily with their family separately. The behavior of the respondent was cruel-some, hence, the applicant was living separately since 2006. The respondent used to give some maintenance amount to survive the applicant but from the month of February, 2009 the respondent stopped to give any amount on account of wrong advise of her son Ramkumar and his wife Saraswati. Due to weaker financial condition, the applicant filed an application for maintenance before learned Family Court, Jabalpur. 3. Respondent entered his appearance by filing reply and submitted that the marriage of applicant was solemnized with Kapoorchand, elder brother of the respondent. After death of Kapoorchand the applicant was alone unable to survive, hence, the respondent has allowed to the applicant to live with him. Thereafter, children were born. The applicant without any reason left the house of the respondent and was living with her son Santosh Namdeo and never turned up, therefore, the application filed by the applicant deserves to be dismissed. 4. Learned Family Court dismissed the application, hence, being aggrieved by impugned order this revision is preferred by the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is old and infirm lady and living alone and having no source of income. It is further submitted that applicant having sufficient source of income which is proved by filing sufficient documentary evidence regarding income of the respondent who is willingly denying her maintenance, hence, prayed for grant of maintenance amount. 6. It is further submitted that applicant having sufficient source of income which is proved by filing sufficient documentary evidence regarding income of the respondent who is willingly denying her maintenance, hence, prayed for grant of maintenance amount. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the above made submissions on the ground that the applicant left the house of the respondent on her own will without any justified reason with her son Santosh Namdeo, therefore, this revision requires to be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusal of the available record carefully, this Court is of the opinion of this application deserves to be allowed. 8. This fact is not disputed the applicant is legally wedded wife of the respondent and the couple blessed with seven children. 9. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusal of the available record carefully, this Court is of the opinion of this application deserves to be allowed. 8. This fact is not disputed the applicant is legally wedded wife of the respondent and the couple blessed with seven children. 9. Learned Family Court after marshaling of evidence putforth before him by the parties and after elaborate discussions of depositions of witnesses; particularly admissions of applicant Ram Pyari Bai (PW1) rejected the application, observing that :- **fopkjk/khu ekeys esa mHk; i{k dh lk{; dks ;fn lw{erkiwoZd ns[kk tk, rks ;g izdV gksrk gS fd okLro esa vkosfndk ds le{k Hkj.k iks"k.k dh vFkkZr Lo;a ds xqtkjs dh dksbZ leL;k ugha gSA vfirq fookn mHk; i{k dh larkuksa }kjk mHk; i{k dks vkM+ cukdj mRiUu fd;k tk jgk gS vkSj nqHkkZX;iw.kZ ;g gS fd ekrk&firk gksrs gq;s Hkh mHk; i{kdkj viuh larkuksa ds cgdkosa esa vkdj bl o`)koLFkk esa ,d nwljs ds f[kykQ U;k;ky; esa [kM+s gksus ds fy;s ck/; gSaA ;g vR;ar nqHkkZX;iw.kZ fLFkfr gSA mHk; i{k dh 8 larkusa gksrs gq;s Hkh vkosfndk us vukosnd ds fo#) Hkj.kiks"k.k dk nkok izLrqr dj mlls Hkj.kiks"k.k dh jkf'k pkgh gS tcfd mlus ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd og vius NksVs iq= larks"k ds lkFk fuokl djrh gSA mldk [kkuk [kpkZ] nok&nk: rFkk vU; Åijh [kpkZ Hkh larks"k ogu djrk gSA oLrqr% /kkjk 125 na-iz-la- dk izko/kku ,slh ifRu vFkok ekW ;k firk ds Hkj.kiks"k.k ds fy;s gS tks viuk Hkj.kiks"k.k djus esa vleFkZ gks vkSj Ik;kZIr lk/kuksa okys dksbZ O;fDr mudk Hkj.kiks"k.k ugha dj jgk gksA og O;fDr ifr] firk ;k iq= Hkh gks ldrk gSA fopkjk/khu ekeys esa ftl izdkj dh lk{; vfHkys[k ij gS] mls ns[kus ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd vukosnd ifr us vkosfndk ds fy;s mls Hkj.k iks"k.k gsrq Ik;kZIr jkf'k izkIr gksrh jgs] blds fy;s Lor% lsokfuo`fÙk ds le; vFkok mlds i'pkr~ O;oLFkk djds j[kh gSA fdarq iq= ds HkM+dkos ds dkj.k vkosfndk vukosnd ls fookn dj vkSj vf/kd jkf'k izkIr djuk pkgrh gS vFkok laifÙk ds laca/k esa fookn mRiUu djuk pkgrh gSA blh izdkj vukosnd Hkh vU; iq= o iq= o/kq ds dgus ls vkosfndk ds lkFk fooknjr gaS ;s nksuksa gh fLFkfr mfpr ugha gSA pwafd vkosfndk iq= larks"k ds lkFk jg jgh gSA mlds lkFk [kkrh gSA igu us vks<+us ds diM+s Hkh larks"k nsrk gSA nok&nk: Hkh djkrk gS vkSj [kpkZ Hkh nsrk gS rc ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd og] vukosnd }kjk jkf'k ugha fn, tkus dh n'kk esa Hkj.k iks"k.k ;k thou ;kiu ls oafpr gks tk,xhA mHk; i{k ds chp ;fn laifÙk lacaèkh vFkok vU; dksbZ fookn gS rks mlds fy;s /kkjk 125 na-iz-la- ds izko/kku dks midj.k ugha cuk;s tk ldrsA vr% bl U;k;ky; ds er esa vkosfndk vukosnd ls okafNr Hkj.kiks"k.k jkf'k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh ugha gSA ;fn mldk iq= ;k iq=ksa ds }kjk ikyu iks"k.k ugha fd;k tk jgk gksrk] lk{; ds vk/kkj ij mlds }kjk ;g fl) fd;k tkrk fd og okLro esa vHkkoxzLr gS vkSj mlds Hkj.k iks"k.k dk dksbZ lk/ku mlds ikl ugha gS] rc vo'; mlds }kjk pkgh xbZ lgk;rk ij fopkj fd;k tkuk mfpr gksrk] ysfdu ,slk ugha gSA** 10. Learned Family Court presuming that the applicant filed this false litigation on instance of her son Santosh, who wants to settle his score with his brother Ram Kumar on the cost of their parents, in light of this proved fact that Santosh is looking very well after her. 11. Learned Family Court somehow misconceived that if son is maintaining her mother then husband is not having liability for maintenance of his wife. The case will be different, if husband is not surviving, in such situation the Court will allow claim for maintenance from son to the mother, but when husband is alive then in every case wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband under the provisions of section 125 of the Code. 12. From perusal of the record of the Court below, it is pertinent to mention here that the respondent never denied his liability on the ground that Santosh, son of the couple is maintaining the applicant, hence, his liability is waived. The respondent, retired Government employee also does not claim in his reply that he is suffering from any disease, disability or not having any means of income. The perusal of the written reply goes to show that any such weakness does not agitated by the respondent, hence, he does not produce any evidence in support this regard. Even after, learned Family Court come to hypothetical conclusion that when Santosh is maintaining the applicant, therefore, the respondent is free from liability to maintain her under the provisions of section 125 of the Code. 13. Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by the apex Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and others, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1807 , falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950. 14. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children when they are unable to maintain themselves. 15. 14. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children when they are unable to maintain themselves. 15. As per record and statements of the couple, it is clear that there were existence of differences between this couple right from beginning, therefore, it can be very well presumed that the applicant, 67 years old lady is having sufficient reason to live separately. 16. This position of law is very much clear that it will be for man to show that he has no sufficient means to discharge his obligation: Rajathi v. C. Ganesan [ (1999)6 SCC 326 ]. Means does not signify only visible means, such as real property or definite employment: Basanta v. Sarat [1982 CrLJ 485]. An able-bodied person has sufficient means: Kandaswami v. Angammal [ AIR 1960 Mad 348 : 1960 CrLJ 1098 ]. 17. Retired Government Vehicle Factory Employee Bhagwandas (DW1) admitted that he living in his own house with the family members and also getting Rs.3,000/- per month as pension. 18. On above mentioned facts and circumstances, the applicant succeeded to prove that she is deserted by the respondent, hence, entitled to receive maintenance amount from her husband who is also having sufficient means of income to fulfill his obligation. It is clear that learned Family Court has committed an error of law and fact while deciding the application of the applicant and passed the impugned order. Therefore, it deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside allowing this revision filed by the applicant. 19. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, keeping in mind the present scenario of sky-rocketing prices and financial position of respondent, it is directed that the respondent husband will pay monthly maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand only) per month to the applicant wife from the date of this order. 20. Accordingly, the revision filed by the applicant-wife under section 397/401 of the Code is hereby allowed. 21. A copy of this order be sent with record of learned Family Court. Jagdish Singrore for applicant; Sajidullah Khan for respondent.