ORDER : The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 27.02.2015 by which he has been directed to pay Rs.4,000/-per month to O.P. No. 2, Rs. 4,000/-per month to the minor child and Rs. 2,500/-as lump-sum litigation cost. 2. The opposite party no.2 claiming herself married to the petitioner has filed a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. In the said proceeding the petitioner has examined himself as D.W.1. He has tendered in evidence a copy of the agreement executed between the parties and money receipt which was also signed by both the parties. Opposite party no. 2, the applicant, has laid evidence by examining herself and one Umakand Mahato. It has come on record that the petitioner is married to the female cousin of O.P.No. 2; for serving his wife the petitioner had called services of O.P.No. 2. 3. From the evidences led by the parties, a finding on the status of O.P. No.2 that she is wife of the petitioner has, however, not been recorded by the learned Judge. 4. The learned Family Court Judge has recorded a finding under paragraph no. 11 of the order dated 27.02.2015 that exhibit-A which is the money receipt is an admitted document. 5. In terms of the agreement dated 08.08.2014 signed by both the parties the petitioner has paid Rs. 2.5 lacs to O.P. No. 2 and payment of Rs. 2.5 lacs by the petitioner has not been denied by O.P. No. 2. The learned Family Court Judge referring to the said agreement vide exhibit-A/2 has held that it amounts to admission of relationships between the parties. 6. The error in approach of the learned Family Court Judge is apparent from the following observation by him in paragraph no. 11 of the order dated 27.02.2015: “11.............It is submitted that even if the assertion of the petitioner is accepted, she will not be getting maintenance. The Amicus assisting the petitioner has relied upon the citation reported as 2013 (132 AIC 108) (SC) for stating therein that for the purpose to achieve social justice, the courts are required to adopt different approaches in social justice adjudication. The Amicus assisting the petitioner has relied upon the citation reported as 2013 (132 AIC 108) (SC) for stating therein that for the purpose to achieve social justice, the courts are required to adopt different approaches in social justice adjudication. It is stated that when a woman has been found to be residing with a person akin to a spouse, she will be entitled to the monthly allowance within the meaning of Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. I am of considered opinion that in the given facts and circumstances and in view of the admission of O.P. regarding payment of maintenance and other facts, the beneficial legislation may be construed in favour of the petitioner. The learned Amicus assisting the O.P. has vehemently argued that a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs were given by the respondent in order to save himself and his job from blackmailing of the petitioner and not by way of admission of the relationship. It is submitted that the admission of the O.P to maintain the minor girl in the said agreement is by way of social courtesy and not by way of admission of the fatherhood. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the learned Amicus. I find that the O.P is ready to maintain the minor daughter, as per his own admission, an amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs have been given to the petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that is a fit case, in which, the beneficial legislation u/s 125 Cr.P.C is to be stretched for giving a monthly allowance to the petitioner and her daughter. Thus, the question is answered that petitioner is entitled to a maintenance in the peculiar facts and circumstances.” 7. Apparently, the agreement between both the parties, the petitioner and O.P. No. 2, has been erroneously taken by the learned Judge a circumstance against the petitioner to hold that he is liable to pay maintenance to O.P. No. 2 and her minor daughter. Even assuming that for the purpose of granting maintenance status of O.P. No. 2 is admitted, under sub-section 4 to section 125 Cr.P.C a wife living separately by mutual consent is not entitled to seek maintenance. In my opinion, the agreement dated 08.08.2014 which was tendered in evidence vide exhibit-A/2 under which the petitioner has paid Rs. 2.5 lacs to O.P. No. 2 and his undertaking to pay Rs. In my opinion, the agreement dated 08.08.2014 which was tendered in evidence vide exhibit-A/2 under which the petitioner has paid Rs. 2.5 lacs to O.P. No. 2 and his undertaking to pay Rs. 2,000/-per month to the minor daughter of O.P. No. 2 would effectively oust application of the provision under section 125 Cr.P.C in favour of O.P. No. 2. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, finding serious infirmity in the order dated 27.02.2015 passed in M.P. Case No. 393 of 2011, the impugned order is set-aside. 9. Criminal Revision No. 637 of 2015 is allowed. Revision allowed