ORDER : Both these revisions are being decided by this common order as the same issue has been arising in both the revisions. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from Criminal Revision No.113/2015 (Devendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another) reproduced as under. 2. The applicant has filed this revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2014 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal, District-Bhopal in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.321/2012 whereby application filed by respondent no.2 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been allowed and applicant has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs.3000/- per month to his wife/respondent no.2 3. Brief facts of the case, in short, are that respondent no.2 is a legally weded wife of the applicant. After marriage respondent no.2 lived with the applicant but after sometime their relation turned soul. The applicant and his relatives started demanding dowry, thereafter respondent no.2 left her matrimonial home and started residing in her parental house since then she is living alone. The applicant is not taking care of her nor maintaining her, she is not having any means to maintain herself. The applicant is having a sufficient means of earning. The respondent no.2 filed an application before the family Court, Bhopal under section 125 of Cr.P.C.. The Principal Judge of Family Court, after hearing both the parties finally passed an order dated 11.11.2014 which is impugned here and allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance amount as mentioned above. 4. Being aggrieved by that order the applicant filed this revision on the ground that the order of the family Court based on bad assumption, improper and incorrect. Respondent no.2 wife of the applicant is living separately on their own volition without any sufficient and justifiable cause. He, therefore, pray to quash the impugned order and rejected the application filed by respondent no.2 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Respondent no.1/State has nothing to do with this dispute and has submitted that the dispute is between the applicant and respondent no.2, State is unnecessarily impleaded as a party. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has submitted that learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence properly, respondent no.2. is legally wedded wife, she was denied for the maintenance by the applicant. Respondent no.1/State has nothing to do with this dispute and has submitted that the dispute is between the applicant and respondent no.2, State is unnecessarily impleaded as a party. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has submitted that learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence properly, respondent no.2. is legally wedded wife, she was denied for the maintenance by the applicant. The applicant and his relatives harassed her for not fulfillment of demand of down, there is sufficient cause for living separately, prays for dismissal. 6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of M.Cr.C. No.321/2012. It is undisputed that respondent no.2 is a legally wedded wife of the applicant. Respondent no.2. filed an application before the family Court under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and alleging therein that she got married with the applicant on 05.05.2011. Thereafter she went to her matrimonial home where she lived for a month, after that in-laws started to demand of T.V. and refrigerator. The father of respondent no.2 purchased T.V. and refrigerator and sent to her matrimonial home. In spite of that her in5 laws kept on harassing and beating her, The applicant used to come in night on inebriated condition and beat her and made her watch porn films, ultimately she was expelled, therefore, She left the house of the applicant and went to her parental house. The applicant is working in the Panacea Biotech Company as M.R. and earned Rs.25,000-30,000/- per month. She also mentioned in the complaint that the cause of action arose on 05.12.2011 when the applicant as well as his parents beat the respondent no.2 and she was expelled from home. 7. The applicant filed a reply of the said application before the trial Court. In the reply, he denied all allegations made against him and his relatives and averred that respondent no.2 herself started quarrel and forced to leave her to Bhopal. She used to utter filthy words and tried to break articles of the house. She was not interested to reside in in-laws house, she was much interested to live in her parental house and on account of that she voluntary left the house and started living with her parents without sufficient cause. The applicant earning only Rs.4,000/- per month since December, 2012. He is the only son, he has to take cares of his mother and father. The applicant earning only Rs.4,000/- per month since December, 2012. He is the only son, he has to take cares of his mother and father. He never expelled respondent no.2 from his house. She is living with his parents with her own volition without sufficient cause, thereafter, she started sending SMS on his mobile phone. 8. Both the parties adduced the evidence before the family Court. After hearing both the parties, learned Family Court passed an order dated 11.09.2014. Perused the order. Learned Family Court on the basis of his own experience considered some facts on its own assumption and ultimately allowed the application filed by respondent no.2 and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.3000/- per month. 9. The provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. (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 the 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 not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in Clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means. Explanation.- For the purposes of this Chapter,- (a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875 ); is deemed not to have attained his majority; (b) " wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. Explanation.- For the purposes of this Chapter,- (a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875 ); is deemed not to have attained his majority; (b) " wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. (2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings, as the case may. (3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month' s allowances remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due: Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation.- If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him. (4) No Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance 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. (4) No Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance 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. (5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.” 10. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the burden is placed on respondent no.2 to prove that the means of her husband are sufficient for maintenance and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai reported in (2008) 2 SCC, 316 Hon’ble Apex Court in para 7 has held as under:- “7. Under the law the burden is placed in the first place upon the wife to show that the means of her husband are sufficient. In the instant case there is no dispute that the appellant has the requisite means. But there is an inseparable condition which has also to be satisfied that the wife was unable to maintain herself. These two conditions are in addition to the requirement that the husband must have neglected or refused to maintain his wife. It has to be established that the wife was unable to maintain herself. The appellant has placed material to show that the respondent wife was earning some income. That is not sufficient to rule out application of Section 125 of Cr.P.C.. It has to be established that with the amount she earned the respondent wife was able to maintain herself. 11. Perused the evidence adduced by the complainant before the Courts below. It appears from the Para-2 of the statement of respondent no.2 that she did not do anything but the applicant Devendra Singh at the time of marriage was working in Panacea Biotech Company as M.R. and his monthly income was Rs. 25,000/- to 30,000/-. It is sufficient to discharge the burden. Now, the burden is shifted on the applicant to rebut that fact. The applicant in the reply filed before the family Court, denied the fact that he employed as M.R. in Panacea Biotech Company and earn Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/- monthly. 25,000/- to 30,000/-. It is sufficient to discharge the burden. Now, the burden is shifted on the applicant to rebut that fact. The applicant in the reply filed before the family Court, denied the fact that he employed as M.R. in Panacea Biotech Company and earn Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/- monthly. In para 7 of the cross-examination admitted that he is employed in the Gaitry Medical Store and is earning Rs.4,000/- per month since August 2012. He categorically admitted that till August, 2012 he worked as M.R. but in August, 2012 he left that job and also admitted that at that time he received total amount of Rs.22,000/- per month as salary. The applicant got married with respondent no.2 on 05.05.2011. 12. When appreciating the evidence of both the parties this facts emerges out that the applicant at the time of marriage was employed as M.R. in Panacea Biotech Company and earn Rs.22,000/- per month which means he was having sufficient means of earning at that time. The respondent no.2 filed an application under 125 of the Cr.P.C. on 10.07.2012 and on this date the applicant was employed as a M.R. in Panacea Biotech Company and earned Rs.22,000/- per month. 13. Whether, respondent no.2 was having sufficient means to maintain herself. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent no.2 appear in the examination of Patwari and got selected in that exam but she did not join that post. Therefore, she is capable of earning but she is not inclined to join services. In that respect learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent no.2 is having a sufficient means of earning. This Court is not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. Because respondent no.2 in her statement before the family Court stated in para-3 that she is living with her father. Her father is maintaining her and in para-2(c) she categorically stated that she did not do anything, she was cross-examined by the applicant. In para -6 she admitted that she has done MSc. in Botony, before marriage she worked in Red Cross society as a computer operators for three months and at the time of marriage she left the job. 14. In para 9 she again admitted that she is not doing anything and admitted that she appeared in the exam of Patwari and got selected. in Botony, before marriage she worked in Red Cross society as a computer operators for three months and at the time of marriage she left the job. 14. In para 9 she again admitted that she is not doing anything and admitted that she appeared in the exam of Patwari and got selected. The applicant in his statement stated in para-1 that respondent no.2 is doing job in Bhopal but did not submit any documents to support his statement. When wife of the husband stated that she is not doing anything which means she is unemployed, the burden is shifted on the husband. It is husband to prove that fact and adduce oral and documentary evidence to substantiate, that his wife is earning sufficiently to maintain herself. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai reported in (2008) 2 SCC, 316 in para 8 has held as under:- “8. In an illustrative case where wife was surviving by begging, would not amount to her ability to maintain herself. It can also be not said that the wife has been capable of earning but she was not making an effort to earn. Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. In Bhagwan v. Kamla Devi ( AIR 1975 SC 83 ) it was observed that the wife should be in a position to maintain standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression "unable to maintain herself" does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.” 15. On the basis of aforementioned discussion, this Court is of the firm view that learned family Court rightly concluded that respondent no.2 wife of the applicant at the time of filing an application was not earning to maintain herself. 16. Learned counsel for the applicant also raised the point that respondent no.2 living separately on her own volition without sufficient and justifiable cause living separately not performing the conjugal rights. 16. Learned counsel for the applicant also raised the point that respondent no.2 living separately on her own volition without sufficient and justifiable cause living separately not performing the conjugal rights. In this case burden is shifted on the applicant being a husband of respondent no.2. For this, evidence of both the parties is to be taken into consideration. On perusal of the statement of respondent no.2 she stated in para-5 that she was harassed for dowry and she was told that who will bear her expenses. The applicant taunted that she is not beautiful, she categorically stated that the applicant misbehave with her on account of her woman friends. The applicant in para-2 stated that she forced him to join at Bhopal and she utter the filthy words to his parents when she lived in parental house, she sent SMS to his Mobile Phone. He submitted a hard copy of those SMS as an evidence. Respondent no.2 in para-5 categorically stated that she filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The case is registered in Bhopal and the applicant submitted a petition of divorce in the Court of Korba, Chhattisgarh. In para-11 the applicant categorically admitted that he is not ready to keep respondent no.2 along with him, but respondent no.2 in his statement categorically stated that she is willing to live with the applicant, he is not taking her with him. 17. There is sufficient evidence that both the parties have initiated the criminal proceedings and civil proceedings against each other when respondent no.2 is agreed to live with the applicant. The applicant in his statement categorically stated that he is not ready to take her with him. If the applicant is not ready to take his wife with him, this itself is a sufficient cause for neglecting the wife and if wife is living separately and is willing to live with her husband and husband is not ready to take her with him, is a sufficient cause for the wife to live separately. In this case burden was shifted on the applicant to prove that his wife is living separately without any sufficient cause. Considering all statement of both the parties, this Court is of the view that the applicant failed to release his burden and failed to prove that his wife is living separately without any justifiable cause. In this case burden was shifted on the applicant to prove that his wife is living separately without any sufficient cause. Considering all statement of both the parties, this Court is of the view that the applicant failed to release his burden and failed to prove that his wife is living separately without any justifiable cause. 18. The applicant of Criminal Revision No.2686/2014 Smt. Kanchan Singh who is wife of Devendra Singh seeks enhancement of monthly maintenance allowance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.10,000/- in her favour. Perused the statement of Smt. Kanchan Singh. In para-3 of her statement, she stated that she did not know how much amount her father spent on her, on guessing she stated that Rs. 5,000/- to 6,000/- would be spend in a month, however, in this petition, she claimed Rs.10,000/-. Her statement does not substantiate her claim. Monthly maintenance amount can be fixed on the basis of basic requirement. She nowhere stated that how she calculated Rs.5,000/- to 6,000/- spent on her by her father. Her father has not been examined before the trial Court on that point. This Court does not find any error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court in fixing Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance. 19. No doubt, learned Principal Judge, Family Court assumed certain facts on the basis of its own experience but in spite of that fact, the Court’s conclusion is not having any illegality or perversity. In the conclusion, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order for directing the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as a maintenance to his wife/respondent no.2. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both these revisions are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.