JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. takes exception to the orders passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi, in Criminal Case No. 294-III/2015 on 17.2.2017 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ''Act'') and as affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (II) , Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2017 on 22.12.2017, whereby he allowed the petition filed by the respondent by granting the following reliefs in her favour: "44. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, aggrieved person has succeeded in proving the incident of domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of the Act. Respondent No.1 has committed physical, verbal and emotional abuse and also economical abuse which endanger the health and safety of the aggrieved person. Thus, aggrieved person is entitled to the following relief: (A) Protection Order under Section 18 of Act:- Respondents are hereby restrained from (I) committing any act of domestic violence and (II) aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence and; (III) causing violence to the aggrieved persons, other relatives or any person who give the aggrieved person assistance from domestic violence and respondent is restrained from restraining petitioner to reside in the shared house hold with her child and also restrained from stopping the aggrieved person from residing in her shared house hold with her children. The respondent is also restrained from alienating of assets or properties of the aggrieved persons as well as their interest in shared residence. (B) Residence order under Section 19 of the Act: Respondent No.1 is restrained from dispossessing or throwing the aggrieved person from the shared house hold. The respondent No.1 is also restrained from alienating the shared household. (C) Monetary Relief under Section 20 of Act: Aggrieved person is also entitled to monetary relief under Section 20 of the Act. Respondents are directed to pay monetary relief i.e. amount to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by her and her children at the rate of 3000/- to the aggrieved person per month from the respondent No.1, from the date of filing this petition. Respondent No.1 is also directed to pay compensation amount to the tune of Rs.5000/- to the petitioner." 2. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Respondent No.1 is also directed to pay compensation amount to the tune of Rs.5000/- to the petitioner." 2. It is vehemently argued by Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse as they have failed to take into account that the petitioner is regularly paying the maintenance to the respondent and his daughter and even the petitioner has in fact opened a separate bank account in the name of his daughter. The respondent as of her own volition and without sufficient cause left the company of the petitioner and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance whatsoever. In the alternative, it is argued that the maintenance as otherwise awarded by the learned Court(s) below, is very much on the higher side and the petitioner, who was working as a waiter, is not in a position to afford the same. 3. Before adverting to the contentions put-forth by the petitioner, certain undisputed facts need to be noticed. (i) The marriage of the parties and out of that wedlock, a daughter was born, are not denied. (ii) The respondent has no independent source of income, whereas the petitioner is a man of means as he is working as a Waiter in prestigious hotel at Manali. (iii) The parties had entered into compromise in a complaint earlier filed by the respondent against the petitioner where he has undertaken not to subject the respondent to cruelty. 4. Bearing in mind the aforesaid admitted position, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner need now to be tested. 5. As regards the first contention that the respondent out of her free will and volition left the company of the petitioner, suffice it to say that these findings have been negated by the learned Courts below. 6. At this stage an attempt is made by learned counsel for the petitioner to canvass that the respondent in fact is having extra marital relation with one Abhishek, but these allegations have not been substantiated either before the Courts below and before this Court and, therefore, levelling of such allegations, that too, which casts a serious doubt in the chastity of the respondent definitely amounts to cruelty and in such circumstances, the respondent cannot be expected to live with the petitioner. Therefore, she is fully justified in living separately. 7. Therefore, she is fully justified in living separately. 7. As regards the so called maintenance of the wife and daughter, suffice it to say that it is the obligation of Hindu male to maintain his wife and this is not a modern day concept but it existed even under the Shastric Hindu Law. According to the old Shastric Hindu Law, marriage between two Hindus is a sacrament a religious ceremony which results in a sacred and a holy union of man and wife by virtue of which the wife becomes a part and parcel of the body of the husband. She is, therefore, called ''Ardhangani''. It is on account of this status of a Hindu wife, under the Shastric Hindu law, that a husband was held to be under a personal obligation to maintain his wife and when he dies, possessed of properties, then his widow was entitled, as of right, to be maintained out of those properties. Mulla in his classic work on "Hindu Law, " 14the Edn., dealing with the characteristic of the right of maintenance of a Hindu wife observes: "A wife is entitled to be maintained by her husband, whether he possesses property or not. When a man with his eyes open marries a girl accustomed to a certain style of living, he undertakes the obligation of maintaining her in that style. The maintenance of a wife by her husband is a matter of personal obligation arising from the very existence of the relationship, and quite independent of the possession by the husband of any property, ancestral or self-acquired." Mayne in his Treatise on "Hindu Law and Usage" 11th Edn., while trancing the history and origin of the right of maintenance of a Hindu wife says:- "The maintenance of a wife by her husband is, of course, a matter of personal obligation, which attaches from the moment of marriage." 8. The law on the subject has been elaborately dealt with by the Hon''ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kota Varaprasada Rao and another vs. Kota China Venkaiah and others , (1992) AIR(AP) 1, wherein it has been held as follows: "8. The oldest case decided on the subject is one in Khetramani Dasi v. Kashinath Das, 1868 2 BengalLR 15 . There, the father-in-law was sued by a Hindu widow for maintenance. The oldest case decided on the subject is one in Khetramani Dasi v. Kashinath Das, 1868 2 BengalLR 15 . There, the father-in-law was sued by a Hindu widow for maintenance. Deciding the right of the widow for maintenance, the Calcutta High Court referred to the Shastric law as under: "The duty of maintaining one''s family is, however, clearly laid down in the Dayabhaga, Chapter II, Section x xIII, in these words: ''The maintenance of the family is an indispensable obligation, as Manu positively declares.'' Sir Thomas Strange in his work on Hindu Law Vol. I page 67, says: ''Maintenance by a man of his dependants is, with the Hindus, a primary duty. They hold that he must be just, before he is generous, his charity beginning at home; and that even sacrifice is mockery, if to the injury of those whom he is bound to maintain. Nor of his duty in this respect are his children the only objects, co-extensive as it is with the family whatever be its composition, as consisting of other relations and connexions, including (it may be) illegitimate offspring. It extends according to Manu and Yajnavalkya to the outcast, if not to the adulterous wife; not to mention such as are excluded from the inheritance, whether through their fault, or their misfortune; all being entitled to be maintained with food and raiment." At page 21, the learned Judges have also referred to a situation where there is nothing absolutely for the Hindu widow to maintain herself from the parents-in-law''s branch by referring to the following texts from NARADA: "In Book IV, Chapter I Section I, Art. XIII of Celebrooke''s Digest, are the following texts from NARADA: ''After the death of her husband, the nearest kinsman on his side has authority over a woman who has no son; in regard to the expenditurte of wealth, the government of herself, and her maintenance, he has full dominion. If the husband''s family be extinct, or the kinsman be unmanly, or destitute of means to support her, or if there is no Sapindas, a kinsman on the father''s side shall have authority over the woman; and the comment on this passage is: "''Kinsman on the husband''s side; of his father''s or mother''s race in the order of proximity. ''Maintenance'' means subsistence. ''Maintenance'' means subsistence. Thus, without his consent, she may not give away anything to any person, nor indulge herself in matters of shape, taste, small, or the like, and if the means of subsistence be wanting he must provide her maintenance. But if the kinsman be unmanly (defecient in manly capacity to discriminate right from wrong) or destitute of means to support her, if there be no such person able to provide the means of subsistence, or if there be no SAPINDAS, then anyhow, determining from her own judgment on the means of preserving life and duty, let her announce her affinity in this mode : ''I am the wife of such a man''s uncle; ''and if that be ineffectual, let her revert to her father''s kindred; or in failure of this, recourse may be had even to her mother''s kindered". In Book III, Chapter II, Section II, Art. Cx xII, of Colebrooke''s Digest, we have the following texts and comments: "She who is deprived of her husband should not reside apart from her father, mother, son, or brother, from her husband''s father or mother, or from her maternal uncle; else she becomes infamous." As per the above texts and comments, a Hindu widow if the parents-in-law''s branch is unmanly or destitute of means to support her is entitled to be with the father or the kinsman on the father''s side. 9. In Janki v. Nand Ram, 1889 11 ILR(All) 194 (FB) , a Hindu widow after the death of her father-in-law sued her brother-in-law and her father-in-law''s widow. The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the father-in-law was under a moral, though not legal, obligation not only to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law during his life time, but also to make provision out of his self-acquired property for her maintenance after his death; and that such moral obligation in the father became by reason of his self-acquired property having come by inheritance into the hands of his surviving son, a legal obligation enforceable by a suit against the son and against the property in question. While so deciding, the learned Judges at page 210 made a reference to a passage from Dr. Gurudas Banerjee''s Tagore Law Lectures, thus: "We have hitherto been considering the claim of a widow for maintenance against the person inheriting her husband''s estate. While so deciding, the learned Judges at page 210 made a reference to a passage from Dr. Gurudas Banerjee''s Tagore Law Lectures, thus: "We have hitherto been considering the claim of a widow for maintenance against the person inheriting her husband''s estate. The question next arises how far she is entitled to be maintained by the heir when her husband leaves no property and how far she can claim maintenance from other relatives. The Hindu sages emphatically enjoin upon every person the duty of maintaining the dependant members of his family. The following are a few of the many texts on the subject:-- M A N U: ''The ample support of those who are entitled to maintenance is rewarded with bliss in heaven; but hell is the portion of that man whose family is afflicted with pain by his neglect: therefore let him maintain his family with the utmost care.'' NARADA: ''Even they who are born, or yet unborn and they who exist in the womb, require funds for subsistence; deprivation of the means of subsistence is reprehended.'' BRIHASPATI: ''A man may give what remains after the food and clothing of his family, the giver of more who leaves his family naked and unfed, may taste honey at first, but still afterwards find it poison.'' " The text of MANU as added reads: "He who bestows gifts on strangers, with a view to worldly fame, while he suffers his family to live in distress, though he has power to support them, touches his lips with honey, but swallows poison; such virtue is counterfeit: even what he does for the sake of his future spiritual body, to the injury of those whom he is found to maintain, shall bring him ultimate misery both in this life and in the next." Having so quoted the texts, the Full Bench based its judgment on the proposition: "......under the Hindu law purely moral obligations imposed by religious precepts upon the father ripen into legally enforceable obligations as against the son who inherits his father''s property." 10. In Kamini Dassee v. Chandra Pode Handle , (1890) 17 ILR(Calcutta) 374, it is held by the Calcutta High Court that the principle that an heir succeeding to the property takes it for the spiritual benefit of the late proprietor, and is, therefore, under a legal obligation to maintain persons whom the late proprietor was morally bound to support, has ample basis in the Hindu law of the Bengal School and accordingly decreed the suit for maintenance laid by a widowed brother against her husband''s brothers. 11. In Devi Prasad v. Gunvati Koer, 1894 22 ILR(Calcutta) 410 , deciding an action brought for maintenance by a Hindu widow against the brothers and nephew of her deceased husband after the death of her father-in-law, the Calcutta High Court held that the plaintiff''s husband had a vested interest in the ancestral property, and could have, even during his father''s life time, enforced partition of that property, and as the Hindu law provides that the surviving coparceners should maintain the widow of a deceased coparcener, the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance. 12. In Bai Mangal v. Bai Rukmini, 1899 23 ILR(Bom) 291 , the statement of law of MAYNE that "After marriage, her (meaning the daughter''s) maintenance is a charge upon her husband''s family, but if they are unable to support her, she must be provided for by the., family of her father." Was understood to have been one of monetary character than laying down any general legal obligation. The learned Judge, Ranede, J., after examining all the authorities has broadly laid down the law, as he understood, thus: "In fact, all the text writers appear to be in agreement on this point, namely, that it is only the unmarried daughters who have a legal claim for maintenance from the husband''s family. If this provision fails, and the widowed daughter returns to live with her father or brother, there is a moral and social obligation, but not a legally enforceable right by which her maintenance can be claimed as a charge on her father''s estate in the hands of his heirs." (page 295) . 13. If this provision fails, and the widowed daughter returns to live with her father or brother, there is a moral and social obligation, but not a legally enforceable right by which her maintenance can be claimed as a charge on her father''s estate in the hands of his heirs." (page 295) . 13. However, the same learned Judge, Ranede, J., in a later case in Yamuna Bai v. Manubai, 1899 23 ILR(Bom) 608 , expressed his absolute concurrence with the law laid down by the Allahabad High Court in Janaki, 1889 11 ILR(All) 194 , as regards the right of the widow of a predeceased son to maintenance against the estate of the deceased father-in-law in the hands of his heirs. 14. The view of Ranede, J., in Bai Man-gal, 1899 23 ILR(Bom) 291 , was further conditioned by Ammer Ali, J., in Mokhoda Dassee v. Nundo Lall Haldar , (1900) 27 ILR(Calcutta) 555, by holding that the right of maintenance is again subject to the satisfaction of the fact that the widowed sonless daughter must have been at the time of her father''s death maintained by him as a dependant member of the family. 15. But, both the views of Ranede, J., in Bai Mangal, 1899 23 ILR(Bom) 291 , and Ameer Ali, J., in Mokhode Dassee , (1900) 27 ILR(Calcutta) 555 , did not find acceptance of A. K. Sinha, J., of the Calcutta High Court in Khanta Moni v. Shyam Chand, . The learned Judge held that a widowed daughter to sustain her claim for maintenance need not be a destitute nor need be actually maintained by the father during his life time... All that she is required to prove to get such maintenance, the learned Judge held, is that at the material time she is a destitute and she could not get any maintenance from her husband''s family." "19. In Appavu Udayan v. Nallamrnal, AIR 1949 Madras 24, the Madras High Court has to deal with the rights of daughterin-law against her father-in-law and his estate in the hands of his heirs. There it is held that the father-in-law is under a moral obligation to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law out of his self-acquired property and that on his death if his selfacquired property descends by inheritance to his heirs, the moral liability of the father-in-law ripens into a legal one against his heirs. 20. There it is held that the father-in-law is under a moral obligation to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law out of his self-acquired property and that on his death if his selfacquired property descends by inheritance to his heirs, the moral liability of the father-in-law ripens into a legal one against his heirs. 20. A Full Bench of this High Court in T. A. Lakshmi Narasamba v. T. Sundaramma, AIR 1981 Andh Pra 88 held: "The moral obligation of a father-in-law possessed of separate or self-acquired property to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law ripens into a legal obligation in the hands of persons to whom he has either bequeathed or made a gift of his property. Under the Hindu law there is a moral obligation on the father-in-law to maintain the daughter-in-law and the heirs who inherit the property are liable to maintain the dependants. It is the duty of the Hindu heirs to provide for the bodily and mental or spiritual needs of their immediate and nearer ancestors to relieve them from bodily and mental discomfort and to protect their souls from the consequences of sin. They should maintain the dependants of the persons of property they succeeded. Merely because the property is transferred by gift or by will in favour of the heirs the obligation is not extinct. When there is property in the hands of the heirs belonging to the deceased who had a moral duty to provide maintenance, it becomes a legal duty on the heirs. It makes no difference whether the property is received either by way of succession or by way of gift or will, the principle being common in either case." 21. It is rather pertinent to notice here that the view of Ranede, J., in Bai Mangal, 1899 23 ILR(Bom) 291 , has been dissented from specifically by the Full Bench of this High Court." 9. It can never be forgotten that inherent and fundamental principle behind section 12 of the Act is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands that there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. Sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. 10. The statute commands that there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. Sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. 10. A woman, who is constrained to leave the matrimonial 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. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. 11. Adverting to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that his client is working only as a labourer and, therefore, cannot afford to maintain his wife, the same cannot be a ground to deny the maintenance. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an able-bodied young man capable of earning sufficient money and, therefore, cannot simply deny his legal obligation of maintaining his wife. 12. Similar issue came up before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan , (2015) 3 JT 576 , wherein it has been held as follows:- "15. .........Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. 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, for wife''s right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless isqualified, is an absolute right. While determining the quantum of maintenance, this Court in Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun & Ors. , (1997) 7 SCC 7 , has held as follows:- "The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. , (1997) 7 SCC 7 , has held as follows:- "The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate." 16. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a measure of social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai , (2008) 2 SCC 316 , it has been ruled that:- "Section 125 CrPC 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 JT 164 ". 16.1. This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning. 17. 16.1. This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning. 17. In this context, we may profitably quote a passage from the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash , (1968) AIR(Delhi) 174, wherein it has been opined thus:- "An able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodies person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable to reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the presumption will be easily permissible against him." 13. It has to be remembered that when the woman leaves the matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is deprived of many a comfort. Sometimes the faith in life reduces. Sometimes, she feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There may be a feeling that her fearless courage has brought her misfortune. At this stage, the only comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is bound to give monetary comfort. That is the only soothing legal balm for which she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny. Therefore, the lawful imposition for grant of maintenance allowance. (Ref: Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan supra) . 14. Now, adverting to the ground of maintenance, it would be noticed that the Court below has awarded a maintenance of Rs.3, 000/-, which are hardly worked out to Rs.100/- per day where the respondent and her minor children are required to be taken care of this and cannot be oblivious to the fact that apart from sustenance, the respondent and her children would be incurring some expenses for their upkeep, purchase of clothes, shoes, utensils etc.etc. 15. 15. It has to be remembered that a duty is fastened upon the Court to award maintenance pendente lite in such a manner so that spouse and the child can live with dignity according to their social status. Factors which can be culled out as required to be kept in mind while awarding interim maintenance are as under:- (i) Status of the parties; (ii) Reasonable wants of the claimant; (iii) The income and property of the claimant; (iv) Number of persons to be maintained by the husband; (v) Liabilities, if any, of the husband; (vi) The amount required by the wife to live a similar life-style as she enjoyed in the matrimonial home keeping in view food, clothing, shelter, educational and medical needs of the wife and the children, if any, residing with the wife. 16. It has to be remembered that the object of providing maintenance is to prevent vagrancy by compelling the husband to support his wife and children, who are unable to support themselves. Most of these provisions are not penal in nature, but are only intended for enforcement of the duty, a default, which may lead to vagrancy. The further object underlying maintenance is that neither party may suffer by his/her inability to conduct the proceedings for want of money or expenses. 17. Having failed on all scores, the petitioner would lastly contend that he is ready and willing to take the respondent back to the matrimonial home. 18. I have considered this submission and in case the petitioner was really serious in taking back the respondent alongwith his minor children, then nothing prevented him from doing so, after all he does not require anybodies permission to take back the respondent, who is none other than his wife. 19. I view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s) if any.