JUDGMENT Amar Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA. None appears on behalf of opposite party No. 2. 2. The revisionist Sunil Kumar Dwivedi, has preferred this criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 27.11.2014 passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 27 of 2013 (Arpana Dwivedi v. Sunil Kumar Dwivedi), under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month was awarded to the opposite party No. 2 (Wife) from the date of application i.e. 09.01.2013. 3. Brief facts which give rise to the present revision are that an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code of 1973’) was moved by Aparna Dwivedi on behalf of her claiming maintenance on the ground that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with her as per Hindu rites and rituals on 05.06.2010. The father of the opposite party No. 2 after taking loan from his friends and relatives solemnized the marriage of his lovely daughter with the revisionist and spent more than Rs. 6,00,000/-. The lust of dowry was not fulfilled and just after the marriage the revisionist as well as his in-laws started demanding more dowry e.g. Passion Pro Motorcycle (Hero Honda) and Rs. 2,00000/- cash and for that they were used to torture her. Not only, this the revisionist and their parents snatched the jewelry valuing Rs. 2,00,000/- which was given by her father in the marriage and on 16.08.2012 they have given house hold items by her father to the brother of revisionist namely Sushil Kumar Dwivedi. Still the atrocities of the revisionist and his parents on the opposite party No. 2 not ended and on 04.12.2012 at 3: 00 pm the revisionist along with other family members, after hatching conspiracy beaten her by stick, kick and fist and after snatching her cloth asked her to leave their house and also gave scold that until she brought motorcycle and Rs. 2,00,000/- she would not be permitted to enter in their house. 4. The injuries received by the opposite party No. 2 were got examined. 2,00,000/- she would not be permitted to enter in their house. 4. The injuries received by the opposite party No. 2 were got examined. Thus it is wrong to say that the opposite party No. 2 just after the marriage started pressurizing the revisionist to live separately. On that too, the opposite party No. 2 tried to calm down the situation, but all in vain and when she found that there is no way to her at least she filed Case No. 27 of 2013 (Aparna Dwivedi v. Sushil Kumar Dwivedi) U/s. 125 Cr.P.C. Learned Principal Family Judge, after hearing the parties and evaluating the evidence produced, allowed the application and granted maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the opposite party No. 2 (Wife) from the date of application. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist came up before this Court in this revision. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that opposite party No. 2 used to build pressure upon the revisionist to live separate and when he refused to live separate, she started harassing and humiliating the family members of the revisionist. It is also stated that the ex-parte order dated 27.11.2014 is absolutely illegal and liable to be set-aside by this Hon’ble Court because the revisionist had no knowledge about the above mentioned case and no notice or summon has been served to him, therefore, he could not appear the court concerned and ex-parte order has been passed. Learned Principal Judge (Family court), Agra wrongly appreciated the evidence and passed the order in vague and cursory manner. 7. It is contended in the affidavit filed by learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 that the opposite party No. 2 is an unemployed, having no source of income, she is unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, the revisionist is a teacher and the monthly salary of revisionist is more than Rs. 25,000/-. Except that he is imparting tuition to the children and from that he earns more than Rs. 30,000/- per month. The revisionist has also landed agricultural property and from that he earns Rs. 50,000/- per month. From the above, it is clear that the monthly income of the revisionist is more than one lac, as such to say that the maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- is highly excessive, is against the settled principle of law. 8. 30,000/- per month. The revisionist has also landed agricultural property and from that he earns Rs. 50,000/- per month. From the above, it is clear that the monthly income of the revisionist is more than one lac, as such to say that the maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- is highly excessive, is against the settled principle of law. 8. In this revision, the main point of determination is that whether the revisionist despite having sufficient means neglect or refuse to maintain his wife and the revisionist had left the house of husband without any reason. 9. Before adverting to the claim of the parties, it would be relevant to quote section 125 Cr.P.C.: 10. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents : “125. (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain- (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not unable to maintain itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct.” 11. From perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that an order under section 125 Cr.P.C. can be passed, if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay as he does not have a job or his business. These are only bald excuses and in fact they have no acceptability in laws. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 has held the grant of maintenance to wife is a measure of social justice. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 has held the grant of maintenance to wife is a measure of social justice. The Court held as under: “Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, (1978) 4 SCC 70 falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. 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 and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (2005) 3 SCC 636 . 13. A Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Durga Singh Lodhi v. Prembai and others, 1990 Cr.L.J. 2065 has held that mere absence of visible means or real estate will not entitle such a person to escape the liability to pay maintenance awarded under Section 125(1), as even at the stage of enforcement of the order under Section 125(1), an able bodied healthy person capable of earning, must be subjected to pay maintenance allowance. If, with this visible capacity to earn, he avoids payments, it has to be held that he has so done for no sufficient cause. If such a person avoids to discharge that obligations despite issuance of a distress warrant, he can be sentenced to imprisonment for a term specified in sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. 14. In a recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, Criminal Appeal Nos. 564-565 of 2015, decided on 06.4.2015, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. 564-565 of 2015, decided on 06.4.2015, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 Cr.P.C., it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar.” 15. After going through the record, it is clear that opposite party No. 2 is being harassed and tortured by raising demand of dowry i.e. Rs. One Lakh and a motorcycle, ultimately she was ousted from the house without any reason. Almost no wife is supposed to leave the house of the husband without any rhyme or reason. Wife’s right to claim maintenance can be denied in the circumstances only provided under section 125(4) Cr.P.C. which runs as follows: “Section 125(4)- No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance [for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,] from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.” 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Bai Patel v. Shyam Kumar Patel 2002 (44) ACC 1102 SC has held as under: “To put it differently, does the statements made by the wife that she had left the matrimonial home voluntarily and that she was earning Rs. 50/- per day by agricultural operations, disentitle her to receive maintenance from her husband? It is our considered view that such statements without anything more would not be sufficient to deny maintenance to the wife from her husband. 50/- per day by agricultural operations, disentitle her to receive maintenance from her husband? It is our considered view that such statements without anything more would not be sufficient to deny maintenance to the wife from her husband. It is to be kept in mind that it is the responsibility of the husband to maintain his wife and wife has the right to claim maintenance so long as she stays away from the matrimonial home under compelling circumstances. The wife’s right to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can be denied only in the circumstances provided under sub-section (4) of the said section.” 17. Principle is that when prima facie marriage is established, maintenance should be awarded because section 125 Cr.P.C. is intended to curtail destitution and also to ameliorate orphancy. The object is to achieve social purpose and to prevent vagrancy and destitute. 18. The opposite party No. 2 Arpana Dwivedi is trying to get maintenance through this application since 2013 but not even a single penny in lieu of maintenance has been received from her husband. The proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. provides a speedy remedy for supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife whereas the revisionist has failed to establish that opposite party No. 2 without any sufficient reason refused to live with him. 19. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra in Case No. 27 of 2013 is justified and is hereby upheld. 20. The revision is dismissed.