JUDGMENT : (Subhash Chand, J.) : 1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 14.06.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance Case No.165 of 2022, whereby the petitioner-husband was directed to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.35,000/-per month to the opposite party No.2-wife, payable by 10th day of each succeeding month from the date of application i.e. 16.03.2022 and further direction was made to pay the arrears of amount within two months from the date of the order. 2. The brief facts leading to this Criminal Revision are that the maintenance petition was moved on behalf of the opposite party No.2-wife with these averments that she is legally wedded wife of petitioner-husband, namely, Dinesh Kumar Vishwakarma with whom her marriage was solemnized on 03.06.1995 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. After the marriage, both lived together as wife-husband at Kamardhubi, Nirsa, Dhanbad. The opposite party No.2-wife has left the matrimonial house in the year 2011 and since then she has been residing at her parental house having no source of income to maintain her. The opposite party No.2-wife is dependent upon her parents, who are also not in a position to maintain her for a long period. The petitioner-husband is in service at IITDM, Jabalpur and has been drawing salary of Rs.3,00,000/-per month, where he is working on the post of Professor. Therefore, prayed to allow the maintenance amount of Rs.75,000/-per month for her maintenance. 3. On behalf of the petitioner-husband reply of the show cause notice was given with these averments that the petition for maintenance filed on behalf of the opposite party No.2-wife is not in a prescribed format as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnish Vs. Neha & Anr. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 . The opposite party No.2-wife was required to disclose her assets and liabilities, also the status of the parties and reasonable needs of the wife. Whether the opposite party No.2-wife is educated and professionally qualified? Whether she has any source of income sufficient to maintain her? The wife has been living separately from her husband at her own will without any sufficient reason and despite several requests made on behalf of the husband; she refused to live with him. The wife is able to maintain herself as she is an educated and well bodied lady. Whether she has any source of income sufficient to maintain her? The wife has been living separately from her husband at her own will without any sufficient reason and despite several requests made on behalf of the husband; she refused to live with him. The wife is able to maintain herself as she is an educated and well bodied lady. She is/was doing job of a Teacher in Carmel School, Dhanbad and earning more than Rs.30,000/-to 40,000/-per month from the said job. The wife had intentionally concealed this material fact and has not come with clean hands to claim for maintenance amount from her husband. Indeed on 24.05.2011, the wife in pre-planned way after having collected her jewelry, cash and other valuable items along with passport left the matrimonial house. The petitioner-husband himself went to the parental home of the wife many times to bring her back but she refused to come without any reasonable cause. The petitioner-husband never subjected her to cruelty as alleged. On the plea of cruelty, she had filed Original Suit No.531 of 2015 for dissolution of marriage against the petitioner-husband; the same suit was dismissed on 08.06.2018 by the competent court. 4. The petitioner-husband was married with the opposite party No.2-wife on 02.05.1995 at Kalyaneshwari Temple and the marriage was registered on 03.06.1995 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The opposite party No.2-wife has done skill course of Yoga, Music and Personality Development class in Banglore. She was working as a Lecturer in MES College, Banglore. She has done Japanese Language Course at Tsukuba in Japan and further she joined the laboratory of Professor Kouichi Murakami, Graduate School of Pune and Applied Sciences University of Tsukuba, Japan where she got employment as a Research Assistant with recommendations from the Host Professor Kiyoshi Asakawa of her husband-petitioner. The petitioner-husband also deposited Rs.2,00,000/-in the bank account of the father-in-law while she was returned back from Jabalpur. Further Rs.50,000/-was deposited in her ICICI Bank account on 04.05.2012. On 21.09.2012, the petitioner-husband deposited Rs.20,000/-. On request of the wife, the petitioner-husband was regularly depositing Rs.15,000/-per month but she betrayed and filed a divorce suit. The wife has also done Masters Level Course in Riki in Japan at the expense of the petitioner-husband and had spent about lakhs of amount in her course. 5. On 21.09.2012, the petitioner-husband deposited Rs.20,000/-. On request of the wife, the petitioner-husband was regularly depositing Rs.15,000/-per month but she betrayed and filed a divorce suit. The wife has also done Masters Level Course in Riki in Japan at the expense of the petitioner-husband and had spent about lakhs of amount in her course. 5. The husband has also filed a petition under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for restitution of conjugal rights registered as Original Suit No.884 of 2021, of which, the opposite party No.2-wife has thorough knowledge and, thereafter, she filed this petition for maintenance before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad. The opposite party No.-2-wife has been residing separately from the society of the petitioner-husband without any reasonable cause. The husband has been suffering from Crohn’s disease and Glycemia, which is not curable but controlled by medicine, hence, the opposite party No.2-wife does not intend to reside with him and only wants money for her own fancy. 6. On behalf of the opposite party No.2-wife in oral evidence examined P.W.-1, Gayatri Acharyajee (wife herself); P.W.-2, Menoka Acharyajee (Mother of the wife) and; P.W.-3, Jagbandhu Acharyajee (father of the wife). 7. On behalf of the petitioner-husband in oral evidence examined R.W.-1, Dinesh Kumar Vishwakarma and in documentary evidence adduced Exhibit-A, Identity Card; Exhibit-B, Bank statement of Yoyo Bank Japan and Allahabad Bank, Exhibit-C, Bank Statement of Indian Bank; Bank statement of SBI marked X for identification and; Exhibit-D, Certified copy of judgment passed in O.S. No.531 of 2015. 8. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad after hearing the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the maintenance application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petitioner-husband was directed to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.35,000/-per month to the wife from the date of filing of the maintenance application i.e. on 16.03.2022 and the arrears of the amount was also directed to be paid within two months from the date as stated hereinabove. 9. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment dated 14.06.2022, this Criminal Revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner-husband on the ground that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below is bad in the eyes of law. The learned Court below failed to consider that the petitioner-husband has taken sincere steps to bring her wife back with him. 9. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment dated 14.06.2022, this Criminal Revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner-husband on the ground that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below is bad in the eyes of law. The learned Court below failed to consider that the petitioner-husband has taken sincere steps to bring her wife back with him. The petitioner-husband has also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal right and is/was willing to keep her with love, care and affection; but the wife refused the same without any reasonable cause. The wife has shown the reason of separating herself from her husband due to cruelty; but the ground of cruelty was turned down by the learned Court below in a divorce petition, which was filed on the ground of cruelty, was dismissed on merits by the competent Court. The maintenance petition of the wife was not maintainable in view of Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner-husband never neglected his wife to maintain herself rather he has well looked after and did his best to make her life happy. The petitioner-husband also spent a lot of money to make her career bright as she also got several professional degrees and did professional course. The wife has also admitted that she is B.Ed, M.Ed and M.Phil and her husband had also spent a lot of money on several occasions. The petitioner-husband has also been regularly paying Rs.15,000/-per month to her wife. The wife also admitted that the suit for restitution of conjugal rights was filed on behalf of the husband and, thereafter, she moved the application for maintenance against her husband. The learned Court below has failed to appreciate all these material evidence and has passed the impugned judgment. In view of the above, prayed to allow this Criminal Revision and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below. 10. Heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and the opposite party No.2-wife-In-person and perused the materials available on record. 11. In order to decide the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below, following points of determination are being framed for disposal of this Criminal Revision: “(i) Whether the petitioner-husband has neglected to maintain his wife? 11. In order to decide the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below, following points of determination are being framed for disposal of this Criminal Revision: “(i) Whether the petitioner-husband has neglected to maintain his wife? and; (ii) Whether the opposite party No.2-wife has been residing separately from her husband-petitioner without any reasonable cause?” 12. Both these points of determination are interrelated to each other and are being disposed of together by this common order. 13. The wife, opposite party No.2 herein has taken plea in her maintenance petition that after solemnization of marriage both resided as husband-wife at Kumardhubi, Nirsa, Dhanbad and she has been residing separately since the year 2011 and having no source of income to maintain herself. The reason of residing separately is shown subjecting her to cruelty in the Form No.4 adduced on behalf of the wife. 14. On behalf of the husband, the petitioner herein this plea has been rebutted on the ground that the husband-petitioner has been maintaining his wife thoroughly. He has spent a lot of money to make her career and future bright. He has deposited many times money in the bank accounts of her father and herself for her need and has been giving money whenever required and never subjected her to cruelty. This plea has also been taken that the wife has separated herself from the husband since 24.05.2011 at her own will. The petitioner-husband several times went to the parental house of his wife to bring her back but she refused to come and reside with him. The wife has also filed a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty against the husband; the same was also dismissed on merit by the competent Court. Not only this, the husband has also filed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights and during pendency of the same, the wife has filed an application for maintenance, which is not maintainable in view of Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the wife has separated herself from her husband without any rhyme and reason. 15. Before analyzing the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, it would be pertinent to give the statutory provisions of law, which is reproduced hereinbelow: 15.1 Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under: “Section 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. 15. Before analyzing the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, it would be pertinent to give the statutory provisions of law, which is reproduced hereinbelow: 15.1 Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under: “Section 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 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: [Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.] 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 proceeding, as the case may be.] (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 months [allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,] 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 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. (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.” 16. (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.” 16. In order to decide the legality and propriety of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties are reproduced hereinbelow: 16.1 P.W.-1, Gayatri Acharyajee, in her examination-in-chief, says that she was married to her husband Dinesh Kumar Vishwakarma in the year 1995. Her husband is posted as a Professor in IIIT, Jabalpur and getting Rs.3,00,000/-per month. He has tortured her so she has been residing at her parental house since the year 2011. She has no source of income to maintain herself. There is no child out of the wedlock between them. Her husband also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in the year 2021 registered as O.S. Case No.884 of 2021, which is pending. In cross-examination, this witness says that it is correct to say that she was married in Kalyaneshwari Temple, thereafter; the marriage was registered on 03.06.1995. She had been residing with her husband for three years in Japan. She did M.Sc, B.Ed, M.Phil, M.Ed. She had been teaching for six months in Dhanbad Public School, two months in Carmel School and three months in Lakhisarai. Since 2011, she has been separated from her husband and her husband has deposited money in her bank account. The husband has also deposited Rs.50,000/-in her bank account to complete M.Phil. Her husband has been ailing since 2008-09. It is correct to say that she had filed a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty and the same was dismissed in the year 2018, against which, she did not prefer any appeal. It is also correct to say that her husband had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and after institution of the same, she moved the petition for maintenance. Even if her husband wants to keep her with all dignity, she is not willing to reside with him. She has not filed any affidavit in regard to her movable or immovable property. In the divorce petition, her husband filed the statement of Allahabad Bank i.e. correct. Even if her husband wants to keep her with all dignity, she is not willing to reside with him. She has not filed any affidavit in regard to her movable or immovable property. In the divorce petition, her husband filed the statement of Allahabad Bank i.e. correct. 16.2 P.W.-2, Menoka Acharyajee, who is the mother of the opposite party No.2-wife, in her examination-in-chief, supported the averments as made in the maintenance petition and also corroborated the statement of her daughter. In cross-examination, this witness says that her daughter resided for three years along with her husband in Japan after marriage. Their marriage was a love marriage. Her daughter is M.se, M.fil. She did not do any service anywhere. If her son-in-law wants to keep her daughter with him, she has no objection. 16.3 P.W.-3, Jagbandhu Acharyajee, who is the father of opposite party No.2-wife, in his examination-in-chief, corroborated the statement as given by the wife and in cross-examination, says that his daughter is M.Sc, M.Phil, M.Ed and also did many courses in Japan. His daughter has done Japanese Language, Riki Course, Nano Technology Short Term course. She was working as teacher in Carmel School. She was also working as a Lecturer in Banglore. His son-in-law has also filed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, he has no objection for the same but the decision would be of his daughter. 17. On behalf of the petitioner-husband examined R.W.-1, Dinesh Kumar Vishwakarma. This witness, in his examination-in-chief, has stated that he was married on 02.05.1995 in Kalyaneshwari Temple with Gayatri Acharyajee and this marriage was registered on 03.06.1995. He is familiar with Gayatri Acharyajee since 1993. He was tutor and his marriage with her was love marriage. The relations between both were very cordial. In December, 2002, he was posted in the Ministry of Communication through IES, UPSC, his posting was of Hyderabad and both resided at Hyderabad. One daughter was born out from the wedlock but she died after two or three days of her birth, so his wife was in depression. He assisted his wife to take training of Yoga, Personality Development Course, Riki Therapy Training, Music Training. She also wrote the exam of NET, GATE or IIT Examination. One daughter was born out from the wedlock but she died after two or three days of her birth, so his wife was in depression. He assisted his wife to take training of Yoga, Personality Development Course, Riki Therapy Training, Music Training. She also wrote the exam of NET, GATE or IIT Examination. She got job as a Lecturer in MES College, of which, he produced the ID Card, which is Exhibit-A. In October, 2006, he took his wife to Japan, from where; he was called for research for three years. He lived with his wife in Japan for three years. His wife did certification course in Japanese Language, Riki Course, Nano Technology Short Term course. In Japan, the petitioner-husband was infected with the disease Crohn’s disease and Glycemia, thereafter, he went in India along with his wife in the year 2009 and in India he joined on the post of Assistant Professor in IIT, Jabalpur. In Jabalpur also, his wife used to give music training from that she was also earning. His wife applied in 15 colleges where she has given her resume. He has deposited 4,00,000/-Yen (Rs.2,00,000/-) in the account of his father-in-law on 10.04.2007, of which, statement is Exhibit-B. On 24.05.2011, his wife went to her parental house; reservation of train ticket was also given by him. Many times, he deposited the amount from Allahabad Bank in the account of his wife. The statement of depositing the amount is Exhibit-C and also Exhibit-X. He was under this impression that his wife would reside with him but she had betrayed him, even she filed the suit for divorce in the year 2015 bearing No.531 of 2015 against him, the decree of the same is Exhibit-D. He also filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights in the year 2011 bearing No.884 of 2021. His wife is well educated and doing job and she has sufficient income. In cross-examination, this witness says that his relation with his wife was cordial and 27 years has lapsed since marriage. His wife has been residing separately since the year 2011. A few months ago, she had been teaching in DPS School, Bhuiphore and she has been getting Rs.25,000/-per month. 18. In cross-examination, this witness says that his relation with his wife was cordial and 27 years has lapsed since marriage. His wife has been residing separately since the year 2011. A few months ago, she had been teaching in DPS School, Bhuiphore and she has been getting Rs.25,000/-per month. 18. From perusal of the Lower Court Records, it is evident that on behalf of the petitioner-husband the affidavit in regard to the assets and liabilities was filed, in which, he has stated that his wife deserted him. He has also stated that he voluntarily contributed for future of his wife, the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-and Rs.15,000/-x 12 =Rs.1,80,000/-. 19. On behalf of the husband in documentary evidence filed the ID Card of P.U. College of Arts, Commerce and Science, in which, her designation is shown unadded lecturer in Electronics Department, which is at page 33 of the Lower Court Records. At page Nos.34 to 35 is the decree of Original Suit No.531 of 2015 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, wherein the suit filed for divorce on behalf of the wife was dismissed on contest on 08.06.2018. At page Nos.35 onward to 41 are the statement of bank accounts, through which, the husband had deposited the amount in the bank account of his wife and in the bank account of his father-in-law as well. At page No.43 onward is the photocopy of certified copy of the judgment dated 08.06.2018 passed in Original Suit No.531 of 2015 (Gayatri Acharyajee Vs. Dinesh Kumar Vishwakarma), which was dismissed on merits. 20. From the oral evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and also the documentary evidence on record, it is well proved that the petitioner-husband has also been maintaining his wife thoroughly. He has never neglected to maintain his wife. He has done a lot for her wife to make her career and future bright. The wife of the petitioner also did several professional courses and she is highly qualified. She has done M.Ed, M.Phil, B.Ed she has also done several courses Japanese Language, Riki Course, Nano Technology Short Term course, all this was done at the expenses, which were incurred by the husband. It appears from the evidence on record that the husband has been sincerely and thoroughly maintaining his wife and did his best for the welfare of his wife. 21. It appears from the evidence on record that the husband has been sincerely and thoroughly maintaining his wife and did his best for the welfare of his wife. 21. Per contra, from the evidence on record, it is also evident that despite having done so much by her husband for her welfare, the wife has separated from the society of her husband in the year 2011 and her husband did many efforts to bring her back to reside with him but she refused without any reasonable cause. Not only this, the wife has also filed a suit for divorce against her husband on the ground of cruelty bearing Original Suit No.531 of 2015, which was dismissed on 08.06.2018 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, against the same, the wife did not prefer any appeal. Further, the husband has also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The wife also admits that the suit bearing No.884 of 2021 was filed by her husband for restitution of conjugal rights and, thereafter, she filed the maintenance petition. 22. The offer was also given on behalf of the husband to the wife that he wants to keep her with him with all dignity to restitute the conjugal relations; but the wife flatly refused that she will not reside with her husband. On behalf of the wife, the plea of cruelty was taken but there is no evidence to this effect on behalf of the wife. Neither a single instance has been averred in her maintenance application nor the evidence has been adduced in regard to the cruelty as alleged to have been subjected by her husband. While from the evidence adduced on behalf of the husband, it is evident that the husband had spent a lot of money to keep her, as the wife has a lot of professional degrees and professional courses. The wife also worked on several reputed posts but she herself deserted her husband without any sufficient cause. She has been refusing to reside with her husband. 23. In view of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties on record, it is found that the husband has never neglected his wife to maintain herself rather the wife has been refusing to reside with her husband without any sufficient cause. She has been refusing to reside with her husband. 23. In view of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties on record, it is found that the husband has never neglected his wife to maintain herself rather the wife has been refusing to reside with her husband without any sufficient cause. Accordingly, both the points of determination are being decided in favour of the petitioner-husband and against the wife as discussed hereinabove. 24. In view of the findings recorded on both the points of determination of this Criminal Revision, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below, which is not based on the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Court below is found perverse and the same needs interference. 25. In view of the conclusion drawn after disposal of both the points of determination as framed in this Criminal Revision, the wife is not entitled for maintenance in view of Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as such, this Criminal Revision deserves to be allowed. 26. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 14.06.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance Case No.165 of 2022 is hereby set aside and the maintenance application of the wife is dismissed. 27. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned Court below along with a copy of this judgment.