ORDER : The instant application is directed against the order dated 02.09.2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in M.P. Case No.30 of 2008, whereby the learned court below has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to the opposite party no.2 from the date of order i.e. from September, 2014. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the opposite party no.2 filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C and stated that the marriage of the parties were solemnized in 1987 and opposite party no.2 was issueless, therefore, she was driven out of her marital home after giving meager amount and further claimed maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month. 3. The petitioner appeared before the court below and stated interalia that the opposite party no. 2 has already received alimony from the petitioner. He has further referred to an agreement, annexed as Annexure-1, which is a petition filed under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act in Title (matrimonial) Suit No.311/2000, which transpires that they have decided to live separately and the opposite party no.2 has received a lump sum amount of Rs.35,000/- in 1987 itself and the couple has filed a petition before the family court for a decree of divorce. 4. From the impugned order, it appears that earlier, a M.P. Case bearing No.127 of 1994 was also filed which was compromised afterwards. It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party no.2 has agreed to take Rs.14,000/- as one time maintenance and accordingly, the said case was disposed of on 20.03.1997. Subsequently, Title (Matrimonial) Suit No.311 of 2000 was brought by both the parties for a decree of dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under the provisions of Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It has been stated by the petitioner that at that time also Rs.35,000/- was demanded as permanent alimony and she has received that amount. 5. The opposite party no.2 Sugia Devi examined herself as P.W.-1 and in her cross-examination in para-10, she has admitted that Rs.35,000/- was received by her, however, she stated that the amount was not received as permanent alimony and she never agreed for the amount as permanent alimony. 6. 5. The opposite party no.2 Sugia Devi examined herself as P.W.-1 and in her cross-examination in para-10, she has admitted that Rs.35,000/- was received by her, however, she stated that the amount was not received as permanent alimony and she never agreed for the amount as permanent alimony. 6. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that whether the opposite party has right to recur the issue of maintenance again and again, in spite of the fact that she has already received a permanent alimony and she is living separately with her own will. He has further referred to Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C, which clearly stipulates that: “(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.” The counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the opposite party no.2 is basically misusing the benefit of maintenance as provided by the statute. 7. The learned court below has given its finding in paragraph-6 which is as under:- “I have also gone through the decision of the Division Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria Vs. State of Gujarat and Another (1996) 4 SCC 479 while adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, it as stated: While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those woman, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation.” 8. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation.” 8. I have carefully gone through the impugned order, Annexure-1 to the instant revision application and the argument adduced by the parties and from Annexure-1 it is clear that the opposite party no.2 is living separately with mutual consent and has received the entire lump sum future maintenance amount of Rs.35,000/- and she has categorically stated in the petition that she will have no claim against her husband in future in any manner whatsoever including maintenance. The relevant paragraph of the petition is quoted herein below: “4. That, both parties have mutually agreed that their marriage should be dissolved by a decree of dissolution. 5. That, the mutual divorce is sought on the ground of mutual consent and such consent has not been extained by any force, found or under influence. 7. That the applicant No.2 has received the entire lump some future maintenance amount of Rs.35,000/- and the applicant no.2 shall have no claim against the applicant No.1 in future in any manner whatsoever including maintenance.” 9. Even the learned trial court in paragraph-4 has stated that the opposite party no.2 in her cross-examination at para-10 has admitted that she has received Rs.35,000/-. It appears that the learned trial court has erred in awarding maintenance to the opposite party no.2 to the tune of Rs.3,500/- per month ignoring the specific provision of Section 125 (4) which clearly states that the wife shall not be entitled to receive any maintenance from her husband if she refuses to live with her husband without any sufficient reason. Annexure-1 to this application is a compromise petition filed in T.M.S 311/2000 which is self-explanatory. Though the dissolution of marriage by mutual consent was never translated into a decree but the facts stated in the said petition clearly speaks that the wife is living separately without any reason and the couple are residing separately with mutual consent. Further the O.P. no.2 has already received permanent alimony of Rs.35,000/- way back in 2000 itself. 10. Though the dissolution of marriage by mutual consent was never translated into a decree but the facts stated in the said petition clearly speaks that the wife is living separately without any reason and the couple are residing separately with mutual consent. Further the O.P. no.2 has already received permanent alimony of Rs.35,000/- way back in 2000 itself. 10. The learned trial court has passed the judgment solely on the basis of object of the Section 125 Cr.P.C that it is beneficial legislation but failed to consider the specific provision mentioned in Section 125 (4). In my opinion, though it is a beneficial legislation, it should not be misused by any person. The Act is very clear in this regard. In the instant case the wife/opposite party no.2 is living separately and even filed a petition for a divorce by mutual consent after receiving an amount of Rs.35,000/- stating clearly that she will not have any claim against her husband in future. This statement on affidavit clearly transpires that the instant case falls under the category of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C and the opposite party no.2 is not entitled for maintenance. 11. Nobody is allowed to misuse this beneficial legislation. 12. In view of the forgoing discussion, I hold that the learned trial court has erred in awarding maintenance to the opposite party no.2. 13. The instant petition is hereby allowed and the order dated 02.09.2014 passed by the learned court below in M.P. Case No.30/08 is set aside.