ORDER : 1. The challenge is given by the wife as present applicant to the order passed by Family Court, Amreli on 21.10.2022 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.65 of 2022, whereby the maintenance application of the petitioner came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment and order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision application. 2. The facts of the case suggest that the applicant and the respondent’s marriage was solemnized on 01.02.2019. They resided together in the joint family. The applicant has alleged that she was treated with mental and physical cruelty by the respondent and his family members with a view to get dowry, and without any reasonable cause, on 26.01.2022 she was deserted by the respondent. Therefore, on 06.02.2022, she moved the office of ‘Sakhi One Stop’, and thereafter she was taken back by the respondent. It is stated by the applicant that she was put to threat by the respondent and was instructed not to give such a writing or else she would not be allowed in the house. But, since the applicant denied so, she was deserted by the respondent and now she is living her life without any source of income. 2.1 It is the case of the applicant that the respondent is serving in the Bank of Baroda and having monthly salary of Rs.40,000/-. The father of the respondent is having a hair cutting saloon and his monthly income is Rs.20,000/-. Except the applicant, the respondent has no other responsibility; thus, has made a prayer for maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. 3. The Family Court served the notice and written statement of the respondent was placed on record at Exh.12, where he had denied the contention raised by the applicant in totality, and had also denied of treating her with mental and physical cruelty. The respondent has alleged that the applicant is fond of living luxurious life, whereas the respondent has a limited income, therefore, the respondent could not fulfill the requirement of the applicant, and she has harassed the respondent by filing such an application. 3.1 It is also the case of the respondent that the applicant is having a degree of M.Com., M.B.A. and she earns monthly income of Rs.10,000/- by doing private job, and, thus should not be awarded any maintenance amount. 4. 3.1 It is also the case of the respondent that the applicant is having a degree of M.Com., M.B.A. and she earns monthly income of Rs.10,000/- by doing private job, and, thus should not be awarded any maintenance amount. 4. The Family Court had noted that the petitioner does not have any job, but this fact itself could not prove that she is unable to maintain herself. It was also noted that in the past also, she was doing job and thereafter, at present, also she can maintain her by doing job or other business. 4.1 The opponent is a peon-cum-sweeper in Bank of Baroda. His yearly salary income as per income tax return is Rs.4,05,003/- for the year 2021-2022 after standard deduction. 5. In case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Ors., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in regard to the maintenance to the wife, has observed that, Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 provides for maintenance of wife, children and parents in a summary proceeding. Maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. may be claimed by a person irrespective of the religious community to which they belong. The purpose and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide immediate relief to an applicant. An application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is predicated on two conditions: (i) the husband has sufficient means; and (ii) “neglects” to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself. In such a case, the husband may be directed by the Magistrate to pay such monthly sum to the wife, as deemed fit. Maintenance is awarded on the basis of the financial capacity of the husband and other relevant factors. 5.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment referred to the case of Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi, reported in (1975) 2 SCC 386 , wherein it has been held as under: “19. The object of these provisions being to prevent vagrancy and destitution, the Magistrate has to find out as to what is required by the wife to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the family. The object of these provisions being to prevent vagrancy and destitution, the Magistrate has to find out as to what is required by the wife to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the family. The needs and requirements of the wife for such moderate living can be fairly determined, only if her separate income, also, is taken into account together with the earnings of the husband and his commitments.” (emphasis supplied) Prior to the amendment of Section 125 in 2001, there was a ceiling on the amount which could be awarded as maintenance, being Rs. 500 “in the whole”. In view of the rising costs of living and inflation rates, the ceiling of Rs. 500 was (1975) 2 SCC 386 .” 5.2 In Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra), the Apex Court referring to section 125 Cr.P.C. noted that, Prior to the amendment of Section 125 in 2001, there was a ceiling on the amount which could be awarded as maintenance, being Rs. 500 “in the whole”. In view of the rising costs of living and inflation rates, the ceiling of Rs. 500 was done away by the 2001 Amendment Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act states that the wife had to wait for several years before being granted maintenance. Consequently, the Amendment Act introduced an express provision for grant of “interim maintenance”. The Magistrate was vested with the power to order the respondent to make a monthly allowance towards interim maintenance during the pendency of the petition. Under sub-section (2) of Section 125, the Court is conferred with the discretion to award payment of maintenance either from the date of the order, or from the date of the application. Under the third proviso to the amended Section 125, the application for grant of interim maintenance must be disposed of as far as possible within sixty days’ from the date of service of notice on the respondent. 5.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra), in connection to earning of wife observed that, the courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. 5.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra), in connection to earning of wife observed that, the courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The courts have provided guidance on the issue in the following judgments, which are as under: 5.3.1 In Shailja v. Khobbanna, reported in (2018) 12 SCC 199 , the Apex Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The Court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival. 5.3.2 In Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha, reported in (2014) 16 SCC 715 , the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. 5.3.3 The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694, while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha (supra), held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance. 5.3.4 An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani, reported in 1968 SCC OnLine Del. 52. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court. 52. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court. 5.3.5 The Apex Court in Shamima Farooqui v Shahid Khan, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705 , cited the judgment in Chander Prakash (supra) with approval, and held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife. 6. It has not been proved on record that though wife is having a degree of M.Com., M.B.A., she is earning any income. The wife, after desertion, has moved the office of ‘Sakhi One Stop’, and thereafter she was taken back by the respondent. Again the wife did not find conducive conditions in the matrimonial home, thus, leaving the house, would not mean to consider as voluntary desertion. 7. Considering the fact that the husband is serving in the Bank on the cadre of peon-cum- sweeper, and further has the responsibility of mother, sister and has to pay EMI for the loan, Rs.8,000/- per month would be appropriate to grant the applicant as maintenance per month. 8. In the result, the present Revision Application is allowed. The order dated 21.10.2002 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Amreli in Criminal Misc. Application No.65 of 2022 at Exh.22 is quashed and set aside and the amount of Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance is ordered to be paid by the respondent no.2 to the present revisionist. Since no maintenance amount has been granted to the applicant and considering her status as a wife, the amount of maintenance is ordered to be paid from the date of application. 9. In view of the above, Criminal Misc. Application stands disposed of accordingly.