ORDER : 1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.12.2010 whereby the Family Court, Belagavi, has denied maintenance to the petitioner wife in her Criminal Misc. No.567 of 2009. 2. The brief facts stated are: (a) The petitioner married the respondent on 06.04.1994 and couple begot three children from RPFC No.314 of 2011 3 the marriage. On 16.04.2009, the respondent and his brother picked up quarrel and assaulted petitioner No.1 who sustained physical injuries and mental agony resulting into an FIR being lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent and his brother Maruti. (b) The police have investigated into the al legations and filed the charge-sheet holding that there is sufficient material to prove the allegations. After the assault and injury, the petitioner has taken shelter in the house of her parents. The petitioner is an illiterate villager, having no exposure to the material world. 3. After service of notice, the respondent appeared through his counsel and filed objections contending that: (a) The petitioner had left her matrimonial home on her own; at no point of time, the petitioner wife was ill-treated by the respondent or his brother; the petitioner is staying away from the matrimonial home without any justification. The petitioner’s Criminal Case against the respondent for assault and cruelty has culminated into an order of acquittal; (b) The petitioner is capable of earning her own livelihood by doing agricultural work; the respondent husband though is alleged to have owned lands and other properties, they are not exclusively his own but they belong to the joint family. They do not yield much income either. Thus, the respondent is not in a position to pay any amount for the maintenance of the petitioner wife, he himself lacking sufficient means. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the documents produced in the case, the Court below had framed two issues, viz., one relating to the respondent’s refusal to maintain the petitioner and other relating to the entitlement of the petitioner wife to maintenance. To prove her case, the petitioner got examined herself as PW-1 and the documents at Exs.P-1 to 14 came to be marked. To prove her case, the petitioner got examined herself as PW-1 and the documents at Exs.P-1 to 14 came to be marked. Exs.P-1 to 8 are the Record of Rights and RTC which mention the land holding of the respondent along with his brothers and mother. 5. In support of his version, the respondent got examined himself as RW-1 and got marked no documents. The Court below vide impugned judgment and order awarded maintenance to the children of the parties. However, no maintenance was awarded to the petitioner wife herein. 6. This Court went through every page of the lower court records which run into 247 pages. The documents at Exs.P-1 to 8, specifically show that the petitioner and his family has been holding land to an extent of 17 acres apart from house property and the house site. Therefore, there is sufficient material to hold that the respondent husband is having financial capacity to pay the maintenance. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner wife herself has been staying away from the matrimonial home with no justification whatsoever and therefore, under the provisions under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a wife voluntarily desserts the company of the husband with no justification whatsoever is not entitled to any maintenance. However, the records disclose that the petitioner wife was assaulted by the respondent and his brother Maruti way back in April 2009 which resulted in an FIR being lodged with the jurisdictional police. 7A. The police investigated the matter thoroughly recording the statement of several persons and filed the charge-sheet showing that the petitioner was badly injured. However, the respondent and his brother are acquitted by the Criminal Court is a feeble defence inasmuch as the proceedings for maintenance are of summary procedure and therefore, the acquittal will not rob away the probative force of the evidence on record that the petitioner was assaulted and consequentially, she had secured refuge elsewhere. Therefore, there is sufficient justification for the petitioner wife to quit matrimonial home to save her body and soul. 8. Although, there is full cross-examination of the petitioner from the side of the respondent as to the circumstances resulting into the petitioner quitting the matrimonial home and also the petitioner having financial capacity and the petitioner has been doing some coolie job earning Rs.100/- per day. 8. Although, there is full cross-examination of the petitioner from the side of the respondent as to the circumstances resulting into the petitioner quitting the matrimonial home and also the petitioner having financial capacity and the petitioner has been doing some coolie job earning Rs.100/- per day. Al l these when looked at comprehensively probabilise petitioner’s version that the respondent is in a financial position to look after the petitioner; the respondent had ill-treated her with connivance of his brother Maruti which resulted into petitioner voluntarily deserting the matrimonial home. 9. At this stage of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed grant of any maintenance stating that although the family owned 17 acres of land and the other properties, in a suit bearing O.S. No.202 of 2010, a compromise decree has been made between as many as ten parties, where under an extent of 02 acres 18 guntas of land has been allotted to the respondent. The certified copy of the judgment which is shown to the Court as a further development in the case. 10. The suit was filed on 15.02.2010 i.e., a little after the petitioner wife had filed the maintenance petition and after her examination-in-chief was conducted in February 2010; suit got disposed of f within five months by the compromise decree dated 20.07.2010; the shares have been allotted not only to the brothers and sisters of the respondent but also in favour of others. The chronology of events shows that the respondent is not prosecuting his defence with clean hand, clean heart and clean head. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below grossly erred in making the impugned judgment and order denying maintenance to the petitioner wife. Therefore, I make the following : ORDER (i) The Revision Petition is partly allowed; (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.2010 in Criminal Misc. No.567 of 2009 passed by the Family Court, Belagavi, is set aside; (iii) The petitioner is entitled to maintenance of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) per month and the respondent shall pay the said maintenance that has accrued due with effect from the date of the impugned judgment and order which is now set aside; (iv) The respondent is also liable to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the petitioner wife;