ORDER : 1. The petitioner-wife is aggrieved of the order dated 28.06.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 143 of 2013 by which the learned Family Court Judge has granted maintenance for the child but held that she is not entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 10.03.1999 at Jamshedpur and from the wedlock a girl child was born. In the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner has claimed maintenance of Rs. 19,000/- per month for herself and for her daughter besides Rs. 20,000/- in lump-sum as litigation cost. In her application the petitioner has pleaded that there was difference of opinion and temperamental differences between the parties and, therefore, they could not adjust with each other. She has alleged that after her marriage her husband has neglected her and did not maintain her, however, with intervention of the relatives and family members her husband started paying maintenance of Rs. 9,000/- per month. She has made allegation against her husband that he was not interested to lead a conjugal life with her and he was also not looking after the minor daughter. She has further alleged that her husband was quarreling with her and this was affecting adversely welfare of their minor daughter. She has also alleged that her husband was not inclined to make her as his nominee in his service record. In her application, she has given details of expenses incurred by her as per the status of her husband. 3. In his show-cause reply the opposite party has denied the allegations of cruelty or harassment and alleged that his wife has on her own gone to her parental home with their minor daughter and she is living separately from him for the reasons best known to her. In paragraph no. 4 of his show-cause reply he has referred to paragraph no. 5 of the application filed by his wife to take a stand that those were the reasons why his wife is living separately. In paragraph no. 6 he has stated that as a good gesture he has been paying Rs. 9,000/- to his wife. 4. Both parties have laid oral evidence and examined themselves in the proceeding of Misc. Case No. 143 of 2013. In paragraph no. 6 he has stated that as a good gesture he has been paying Rs. 9,000/- to his wife. 4. Both parties have laid oral evidence and examined themselves in the proceeding of Misc. Case No. 143 of 2013. In her examination-in-chief the petitioner has reiterated that she has differences with her husband. She has made allegations of harassment and stated that her husband who is working in Oriental Bank of Commerce and receiving monthly salary of about Rs. 62,000/- has neglected to maintain them. During her cross-examination, suggestions were given to her on medical treatment of her husband and her in-laws. She was also put a suggestion that her husband has taken loan and purchased a flat in her name, which she has denied. The opposite party has taken a stand that his wife has deserted him without sufficient reasons, he has suffered facial paralytic attack and has to support his parents on whom he is incurring expenses of Rs. 6,000/- per month. During his cross-examination he has admitted that his father was employed as Foreman in TELCO and for treatment of his father he is reimbursed from his employer. He has also admitted that he gets housing allowance from his employer and he does not know expenses on study of his daughter whom he has met once or twice. He has further admitted that he does not have any document regarding loan for purchase of the house. 5. In the order dated 28.06.2016, the learned Family Court Judge has noticed that in her examination-in-chief the applicant has reiterated her statement made in the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has further noticed that in her examination-in-chief the applicant has stated that on account of cruel behaviour of her husband she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and is residing with her parents (paragraph no. 8 of her evidence). From the evidence led by the opposite party, the learned Family Court Judge has noticed admissions of the opposite party regarding treatment of his father and housing loan in his cross-examination. On such findings, the learned Family Court Judge has held that in view of sub-section 4 to section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner is not entitled for maintenance from her husband. 6. The learned Family Court Judge has held as under: Heard and perused the record. On such findings, the learned Family Court Judge has held that in view of sub-section 4 to section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner is not entitled for maintenance from her husband. 6. The learned Family Court Judge has held as under: Heard and perused the record. Under section 125(4) there is a clear stipulation that if the wife without any sufficient reason refuses to live with her husband, she will not be entitled for maintenance. With this legislative mandates, the pleadings as contained in para-4 and 5 of the application is required to be seen: “4. That there was differences of opinion and there is temperamental differences between the applicant no. 1 and the opposite party hence they could not adjust along with each other and lead conjugal relationship along with each other. 5. That, the applicant only to seek the welfare of the applicant no. 2 had to come to her parental home and since then she is residing in her parental home, though off and on she went to her matrimonial home but for a short time the opposite party also paid visits outside the parental home of the applicant as there is no cordial relationship between the applicant no. 1 and the opposite party.” Further, at para-11 it has been stated that applicant is residing in her parental home since the year 2002. It is further stated that opposite party always quarreled with the applicant no. 1 and it was resultantly adversely affecting in the welfare of the minor child who then was aged about less than 2 years. This allegation is quite vague as what was the conduct of the O.P which resulted adversely into welfare of the minor child below 2 years of age. There is no evidence with regards to the quarrel more significantly since the year 2002 to 2013 the applicant never tried to resume conjugal life nor made any application for maintenance. Under such circumstances, it is not clear that as to how she was being maintained for 11 long years and why this application for maintenance was not filed immediately after her leaving of her husband home. In evidence, she says that her husband kept her in her parental home and thereafter did not take her back while in the pleadings she says that she left matrimonial home for the welfare of the child. In evidence, she says that her husband kept her in her parental home and thereafter did not take her back while in the pleadings she says that she left matrimonial home for the welfare of the child. Thus, apparently, this case comes under the purview of section 125 (4) where the applicant no. 1 has failed to provide any plausible reason for not living in the company of her husband or any valid excuse for living separately and therefore, is not entitled for maintenance. 7. The order dated 28.06.2016 apparently suffers from serious infirmities and the learned Judge has proceeded in the matter with material irregularity. The learned Family Court Judge has committed serious errors in law in holding that the petitioner is not entitled for maintenance from her husband because she has failed to show sufficient reasons to leave the company of her husband. 8. The proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is summary in nature and the object behind this beneficial legislation is to see that the wife or the minor child does not live in destitution. In Sunita Kachwaha and Others vs. Anil Kuchwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that minute details of matrimonial disputes between the husband and wife need not be gone into and it is not necessary for the court to ascertain who was in wrong. That apart, one of the reasons why the learned Family Court Judge held that the petitioner is not entitled for maintenance is her statement at paragraph nos.4 and 5 in her application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After extracting paragraph nos.4 and 5 of the application filed by the petitioner under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Family Court Judge has held that the applicant has not led any evidence regarding quarrel between the couple particularly after the year 2002; that she has never tried to resume her conjugal life, and; that it is not clear why the applicant has not filed the application for maintenance for long 11 years. These are quite irrelevant considerations. These are inference drawn by the learned Judge which in absence of cross-examination on these aspects cannot be drawn. Her statement in paragraph nos. These are quite irrelevant considerations. These are inference drawn by the learned Judge which in absence of cross-examination on these aspects cannot be drawn. Her statement in paragraph nos. 4 and 5 would not amount to admission by her that she has without any reason left the company of her husband. Moreover, pleadings of the parties do not constitute evidence and if that has to be taken as evidence, it needs to be recorded here that the show-cause reply filed by the respondent is as cryptic as it can be and it lacks foundational facts for resisting the application of his wife for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, the learned counsel for opposite party has relied on the decision in Deb Narayan Halder vs. Anushree Halder, AIR 2003 SC 3174 , to contend that a finding of fact recorded by the trial court is not open to challenge in a revision proceeding and it has to be given due weight by the appellate and revisional courts. 10. In Deb Narayan Halder case on noticing facts of the case which disclosed that the parties have led a happy conjugal life for several years and only on account of some misunderstanding between the parties the wife has left the company of the husband the trial court held that the wife was not entitled for maintenance, however, the High Court in revision has upset the findings of the trial court without recording any reason. In the aforesaid factual scenario, it has been held that where the findings are findings of fact the appellate or revisional courts must discuss the evidence on record which may justify reversal of the findings recorded by the court below. 11. As noticed above, in the present case the learned Family Court Judge has not only contradicted himself he has failed to examine evidence of the parties in right perspective. 12. I find that the learned Family Court Judge has erroneously held that the petitioner is not entitled for maintenance from her husband. The learned Family Court Judge has himself noticed that at paragraph no. 8 of her evidence the applicant has made allegations of cruel behaviour of her husband and that she was compelled to leave matrimonial home; there is no cross-examination by the defence on this aspect. The learned Family Court Judge has himself noticed that at paragraph no. 8 of her evidence the applicant has made allegations of cruel behaviour of her husband and that she was compelled to leave matrimonial home; there is no cross-examination by the defence on this aspect. Besides the uncontroverted testimony of the petitioner whereunder she has alleged harassment by her husband and made various other allegations, I am inclined to observe that welfare of the minor child is always of paramount importance for a parent. The stand of the petitioner in Misc. Case No. 143 of 2013 on that issue that frequent quarrel by his husband was affecting welfare of their child has remained unshaken. In my opinion this can be a valid reason for her not to live in the company of her quarrelsome husband. The opposite party has failed to look after his wife and the minor child is apparent from his own evidence wherein he has admitted that he has seen his daughter in the last 11 years just once or twice and he has no idea about expenses on study of his minor daughter. Thus, there is sufficient material to hold that the petitioner has just excuse not to live in the company of her husband. The provision under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used to deny a claim for maintenance [Refer Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another, (1999) 7 SCC 675 ]. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, order dated 28.06.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 143 of 2013 is liable to be interfered with to the extent the petitioner has been held not entitled for maintenance from her husband. 14. Ordered accordingly. 15. The matter is remitted back to the Family Court for a decision on quantum of maintenance to the petitioner. 16. The parties shall appear before the court below on 20.03.2020. On that day the learned Family Court Judge shall fix the date for final hearing; the issue has to be decided on the basis of the materials already on record. 17. Criminal Revision No. 1153 of 2016 is allowed, in the above terms. 18. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned through “Fax.”