ORDER : The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.07.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 120 of 2009 by which her application under section 125 Cr.P.C has been dismissed on the ground that she has failed to establish that she is unable to maintain herself. 2. The learned Family Court Judge has held that the opposite party-husband has sufficient means to maintain his wife but the applicant has failed to establish that she is unable to maintain herself. 3. On such findings, the present criminal revision petition deserves to be allowed on a short ground that in a proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C which essentially is a summary proceeding the expression “unable to maintain herself” cannot be construed to mean that the wife must establish that she does not have any income at all and she is leading life of a beggar. 4. A married women becomes entitled for maintenance from the date of her marriage [refer, “Shail Kumari Devi Vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak” reported in (2008) 9 SCC 632 ] and she is entitled to live a dignified life. A destitute life by no stretch of imagination would mean an animal life and some income of a wife is not a ground to refuse an order of maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. In a proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C a husband has to show by leading evidence that he does not have sufficient means to maintain his wife [refer, “Rajathi Vs. C. Ganesan” reported in (1999) 6 SCC 326 ], but a wife who asserts that she is unable to maintain herself is not required to establish that she is living in penury. In “Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai” reported in (2008) 1 SCC 316, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that 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. In “Rajathi” (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of saying that the statement of a wife that she was unable to maintain herself would be enough and it would be for the husband to prove otherwise. 5. In her application under section 125 Cr.P.C the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as applicant) has stated that after her marriage which was solemnized on 07.05.1997 she stayed with her husband but unfortunately both could not lead a happy conjugal life. 5. In her application under section 125 Cr.P.C the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as applicant) has stated that after her marriage which was solemnized on 07.05.1997 she stayed with her husband but unfortunately both could not lead a happy conjugal life. Her husband has instituted Matrimonial Suit No. 111 of 1998 and Matrimonial Suit No. 97 of 2008 seeking divorce which were dismissed and he has approached the High Court of Jharkhand in F.A. No. 57 of 2003 against the judgment in divorce suit which vide order dated 17.02.2004 was also dismissed. She has alleged that her husband never looked after her needs and did not maintain her. In the aforesaid background, on the eve of her retirement from service she has filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C seeking maintenance from her husband. She has pleaded that after early separation from service she was getting monthly stipend from her employer which however was to be stopped after 13.08.2009. The opposite party has filed his show-cause reply denying the allegations of neglecting his wife. He has asserted that on the contrary his wife who is living in the same house is not contributing anything even towards payment of electricity and water charges. He has further stated that on account of her early separation from M/s Tata Steel the applicant was paid huge amount from which she was earning interest of more than Rs. 10,000/- per month. He has also filed additional show-cause reply in which he has levelled allegation of adultery against his wife. 6. The learned Family Court Judge has held that the opposite party has sufficient means to maintain his wife, however, the applicant has not disclosed her financial status and the amount paid to her under Early Separation Scheme (ESS). The learned Judge has therefore raised a presumption against the applicant under section 106 of the Evidence Act on the ground that the applicant was required to come-up with positive evidence to show what amount was received by her under ESS. 7. By holding so, the learned Family Court Judge has committed two mistakes. First, he has misconstrued the ambit, scope and nature of the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C and secondly he has raised a presumption in law which in the facts of the present case could not have been raised against the applicant. 8. 7. By holding so, the learned Family Court Judge has committed two mistakes. First, he has misconstrued the ambit, scope and nature of the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C and secondly he has raised a presumption in law which in the facts of the present case could not have been raised against the applicant. 8. While deciding a claim for maintenance by the wife under section 125 Cr.P.C it needs to be kept in mind that the provision under section 125 Cr.P.C provides summary remedy to a wife and as observed in “Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Anr.” reported in (1999) 7 SCC 675 the provision under section 125 Cr.P.C is not to be utilized for defeating the rights conferred by the legislature on the destitute women, children and parents who are victims of the social environment. In this context what has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal” reported in (1978) 4 SCC 70 and that I intend to reproduce hereinafter needs to be kept in mind: “9. This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advance the cause — the cause of the derelicts.” 9. The next issue is raising of a presumption under section 106 of the Evidence Act. In the first place it needs to be recorded that like any other presumption in law a presumption under section 106 of the Evidence Act can be raised only on fulfilling the necessary conditions and on laying the foundational facts for drawing an adverse inference. The next issue is raising of a presumption under section 106 of the Evidence Act. In the first place it needs to be recorded that like any other presumption in law a presumption under section 106 of the Evidence Act can be raised only on fulfilling the necessary conditions and on laying the foundational facts for drawing an adverse inference. Secondly, the provisions under the group of sections from 101 to 106 lay down the law of the burden of proof of which section 106 is an exception to the general rule contained in section 101, but in a civil proceeding and, that too, in a proceeding of summary nature like one under section 125 Cr.P.C which is though governed under the Code of Criminal Procedure an application cannot be dismissed by raising a presumption under section 106. Of course, a suit or an application would fail if the plaintiff/applicant has failed to prove his case but except in exceptional circumstances such as where the plaintiff has not examined himself as a witness a suit/application cannot be dismissed by raising a presumption under section 106. Moreover, it is well-settled that a presumption in law is not proof of a fact and the presumption under section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the other party of establishing the foundational facts for drawing adverse inference. The applicant has stated in her evidence that her husband has refused to maintain her and as observed by the learned Family Court Judge the only issue which was contested by the opposite party was that the applicant is not unable to maintain herself. The learned Judge has noticed that in her evidence the applicant has denied that she has received Rs. 20 lacs under Early Separation Scheme but according to him mere denial was not sufficient and she was required to ‘prove’ that she has no financial competence and that she did not receive penny under ESS. The learned Judge has misdirected himself in so much so that he has held that the applicant has failed to establish that she is a destitute lady or a lady not having sufficient means to maintain herself. The learned Judge has misdirected himself in so much so that he has held that the applicant has failed to establish that she is a destitute lady or a lady not having sufficient means to maintain herself. These are absolutely irrelevant considerations in a proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. A vague assertion of the opposite party that the applicant has received huge amount under ESS was not sufficient rather the burden was on him to prove that his wife has received Rs. 20 lacs and she is getting interest of Rs. 10,000/- thereon. The applicant has retired in the year 2009 and even according to her husband except whatever amount may be received by her under ESS she does not have any source of income to maintain herself and, therefore, in my opinion her claim for maintenance could not have been rejected. 10. Following the above discussions, I hold that the applicant is entitled for an order of maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C and accordingly the impugned order dated 18.07.2016 which suffers from serious infirmities in law is set-aside. 11. The parties shall appear before the Family Court concerned on 08.04.2020. On that day the learned Family Court Judge shall fix a date for arguments. 12. Under the peculiar facts now that the matter is remitted back to the Family Court for deciding quantum of maintenance to be paid to the applicant, it is expected that a decision would be rendered as early as possible; the application was filed in the year 2009. 13. Criminal Revision No. 1339 of 2016 is allowed, in the above terms.