ORDER : 1. Instant criminal writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband against the order dated 01.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dungarpur whereby the learned Judge dismissed the criminal appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 11.04.2019 passed by learned Gram Nayalaya, Bicchiwara, District Dungarpur whereby the learned Gram Nayalaya allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent-wife and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent-wife as maintenance. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Dungarpur seeking maintenance against the petitioner-husband. The petitioner-husband filed reply to the said application denying all the averments made therein. The said application was dismissed in default for non-prosecution by the Family Court. Thereafter, respondent-wife again filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Gram Nayalaya against the petitioner-husband. Reply to the said application was again filed by the petitioner-husband denying all the averments made therein. 3. On behalf of the respondent-wife, four witnesses were adduced and three documents were exhibited. On the other hand, the petitioner-husband adduced three witnessed and exhibited eight documents. 4. Thereafter, learned Gram Nayalaya framed five issues and after hearing the parties, vide order dated 11.04.2019 allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent-wife as maintenance. The said order was challenged by the petitioner-husband by way of appeal but the appellate court dismissed the appeal vide order dated 01.11.2019 and upheld the order dated 11.04.2019. 5. Hence, this criminal writ petition before this Court. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Gram Nayalaya without appreciating the material available on record and without assigning any cogent reason so also without considering the financial condition of the petitioner-husband has awarded maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife, which was affirmed by the learned appellate court in a mechanical manner. Counsel submits that the maintenance as awarded by the courts below is on higher side as the petitioner is not having enough income. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside or in the alternative, the maintenance as awarded by the Gram Nayalaya may be reduced appropriately. 7. Counsel submits that the maintenance as awarded by the courts below is on higher side as the petitioner is not having enough income. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside or in the alternative, the maintenance as awarded by the Gram Nayalaya may be reduced appropriately. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife submits that looking to the price index as well as poor condition of the lady, the learned Gram Nayalaya has awarded a meager maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month, which deserves to be enhanced. Further, there is concurrent findings of the two courts, which do not warrant any interference from this Court. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders passed by the courts below. 9. Section 125 of the Code makes provision for the grant of maintenance to wives, children and parents. Sub-section (1) of Section 125 inter alia says that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain 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. Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. reads as under: “125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents: 1. xxxxx 2. xxxxx 3. xxxxx 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.” 10. A holistic reading of the provisions would clearly reveal that the responsibility and liability of a person to maintain his wife, children and parents rests on the condition that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain them (wife, children, parents), he can be ordered to make a monthly allowance for maintenance of his wife or child or parents at such monthly rate. The sub-sections 4 and 5, categorically makes it clear as to when the wife is not entitled to maintenance. It is specifically enacted by the legislature that the wife is not entitled to receive maintenance if she is living in adultery or if she refuses to live with her husband without any sufficient reason or that they are living separately by mutual consent. 11. In the instant case, the respondent wife in her statement has clearly stated that after some time of marriage, her husband started harassing the respondent mentally and physically and she was forced to leave her matrimonial home. In a situation when the petitioner husband used to harass the respondent, the respondent had sufficient reason to live separately and therefore, she cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Thus, by virtue of the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C referred to above, the respondent is entitled to maintenance. Therefore, the monthly maintenance awarded by the trial court to the respondent wife for maintaining herself cannot be said to be excessive at all. 12. Further, looking to the price index as well as poor financial condition of the lady, this Court is of the opinion that the maintenance as awarded by the Gram Nayalaya and as upheld by the appellate court is not on the higher side. The learned Gram Nayalaya after taking into consideration all the material available before it, has rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of the respondent-wife, which has further rightly been affirmed by the appellate court. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent finding given by the Courts below. The orders impugned do not suffer from any illegality and perversity, hence, no interference is called for from this Court. 13. The criminal writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. 14. Stay application also decided.