ORDER ON BOARD : Heard. 1. The present revision filed under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act is directed against the order dated 29.08.2011 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.13/2010 by the learned Family Court (Camp Court – Baikunthpur), Dist. Korea (CG) whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.3,000/- has been dismissed by the learned Family Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. stating therein that prior to eight-nine years before presentation of application, she was married to the respondent as per Hindu rituals and custom. After marriage, the appellant joined the company of the respondent and started living her marital life and after a few days, the respondent started hating her and beating her and ultimately ousted her out of his house, then the appellant came to his material village Matijhariya and on 07.04.2009, her brother and other villagers accompanied by Sarpanch went to his house and tried to reach a settlement, but no such settlement could not be done between them. It is also pleaded by her that the respondent again abused her and was threatening her to kill and thrown her of the house. It is further pleaded by her that after ousting her from his house, the respondent did not take any information of her nor any kind of maintenance did provide her. Physically, the appellant is a weak woman and is unable to support herself whereas the respondent is a healthy person, who used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by doing agricultural work and despite that the respondent did not provide her even single penny for her maintenance. Therefore, the appellant is compelled to file this application seeking maintenance from the respondent. 3. By filing written statement, the respondent denied the averments made by the appellant. It has been specifically denied by him that the appellant is not legally wedded wife and in fact, his wife is Mankunwar, with whom his marriage was solemnised. It has further been categorically pleaded that the appellant used to visit her sister’s house at village Karhiyakhand, during which period, she stayed at the house of the respondent for a few days and on the basis of this, she made a false complaint under section 498-A of IPC. It has further been categorically pleaded that the appellant used to visit her sister’s house at village Karhiyakhand, during which period, she stayed at the house of the respondent for a few days and on the basis of this, she made a false complaint under section 498-A of IPC. It has also been pleaded by him that the appellant is a healthy woman and she is able to maintain herself whereas he used to earn Rs.1,500/- - 1,600/- per month by doing as labour work and he is maintaining his wife Mankunwar and his children and parents. On the basis of above pleadings, the respondent urged that the application filed by the appellant be liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned Family Court, after appreciation of evidence, held the appellant legally wedded wife of the respondent; that the appellant is living separately from the respondent with proper and sufficient reasons and the appellant is capable of maintaining herself and ultimately dismissed the application of the appellant. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband and the respondent used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month, which was corroborated by the other evidence of the witnesses brought by the appellant before the learned Family Court and the learned Family Court has also observed in para 15 of its impugned order that since statements of the appellant and her witnesses have not been rebutted nor have been challenged by the respondent with respect to his earning, the finding thereof has attained finality. He also submits that though the learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record, but even if it is presumed that the appellant is working as labourer for few days in a month, then also the respondent husband cannot escape from maintaining his wife. On these premises, he urged that the impugned order may be set aside and sufficient amount may be fixed as maintenance payable to the appellant-wife. 6. The respondent did not appear despite notice was sent to him through paper publication. Even before the learned Family Court, the respondent remained ex-parte. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and perused the record minutely. 8. 6. The respondent did not appear despite notice was sent to him through paper publication. Even before the learned Family Court, the respondent remained ex-parte. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and perused the record minutely. 8. At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, as observed by Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 353 . The Supreme Court in the said case, after referring to the earlier decisions, has reiterated the principle of law as to how the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C have to be dealt with by the Court. It held as under: “In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq [ (1987) 1 SCC 624 :1987 SCC (Cri) 237] the Court opined that : (SCC p. 631, para 16) 16. “… Proceedings under Section 125 [of the Code],it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner.” 8. A three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy(K.) [ (1991) 2 SCC 375 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 442], while discussing about the basic purpose under Section 125 of the Code, opined that : (SCC p. 378, para 3) 3. “Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife.” 9. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat [ (1996) 4 SCC 479 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 762], while adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled that : (SCC p. 489, para 15) 15. “… While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. “… While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation.” 10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [ (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356], reiterating the legal position the Court held : (SCC p. 320, para 6) . 6. “… Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [ (1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [ (2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787] .” 11. Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma [ (2014) 14 SCC 452 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 407 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 346], it has been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children”. 9. Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma [ (2014) 14 SCC 452 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 407 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 346], it has been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children”. 9. The Supreme Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by the Supreme Court in Anju Garg & Anr. vs. Deepak Kumar Garg reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 805. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj vs, Sita Bai, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 316 , it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. 10. Now, in the present case, before the learned Family Court, the appellant has been examined herself as A.W.1 and examined Muniya Bai as A.W.2, Panna Lal as A.W.3 and father Dashrath as A.W.4 whereas the respondent has not been examined himself nor has been examined any one as witnesses and remained ex-parte before the learned Family Court. 11. A.W.1 Fulkunwar has stated in her statement that prior to seven-eight years, her marriage was solemnised with the respondent at village Matijhariya. 11. A.W.1 Fulkunwar has stated in her statement that prior to seven-eight years, her marriage was solemnised with the respondent at village Matijhariya. After marriage, the appellant joined the company of the respondent and started living her marital life at village Nandbhan and after a few days, the respondent used to hate her and performed second marriage and for this reason the respondent ousted her out of his house and at present she is residing in her parental home. After she was ill-treated and ousted by the respondent, her family members took her to the respondent’s house to make him understand, then the respondent started abusing them and told her that she has made his brother as husband and chased her by taking axe and they somehow saved their lives. In cross-examination, she admitted that she did not get work regularly and sometimes she got only Rs.50/- and for sometimes she is lying vacant. A.W.2 Muniya Bai has stated in her cross- examination that the appellant used to work as a labourer and has further stated that she does not go to work every day, sometimes she goes for four days a week and sometimes for five days and it is not certain. She denied the fact that the appellant gets wages of Rs.100/- in a day and admitted that the appellant gets only Rs.50/- per day. From the statements of A.W.3 Panna Lal and A.W.4 Dashrath, it is clear that the respondent performed marriage with the appellant according to religious rituals and customs. A.W.4 Dashrath, father of the appellant, has specifically stated that the appellant is residing with him for about 3 years as the respondent ousted her out from his house after beating her and they tried to settle the matter but the respondent did not agree. He has further stated that the respondent used to earn Rs.5,000/- by doing agricultural work whereas the appellant does not do any work as she is infirm. 12. After appreciating the evidence, the learned Family Court held that the appellant is married wife of the respondent as the same fact remain unrebutted. It is also held by the learned Family Court that for good and sufficient reason, the appellant is residing apart from the respondent. 12. After appreciating the evidence, the learned Family Court held that the appellant is married wife of the respondent as the same fact remain unrebutted. It is also held by the learned Family Court that for good and sufficient reason, the appellant is residing apart from the respondent. It also held that it is noteworthy to mention here that the respondent has not challenged the above statements of the witnesses and in such a situation, there is no reason to disbelieve the statements made by them on oath. 13. It is also pertinent to mention here that no cross-examination has been done by the respondent before the learned Family Court with respect to A.W.3 Panna Lal and A.W.4 Dashrath. However, in cross-examination, the appellant admitted that she works as labourer and although she does not get work on every day basis, but for sometimes she gets Rs.50/- and for sometimes she remains idle and that the evidence of the appellant has also been found corroborated from the evidence of A.W.2 Munia Bai. This apart, A.W.4 Dashrath, father of the appellant also admitted that the appellant is also a weak person and that the respondent used to earn Rs.5,000/-, by doing agricultural work, which the learned Family Court has also held so. 14. It is to be noted here that the learned Family Court, after holding that the appellant is married wife of the respondent and that she was earning Rs.5,000/- and that the appellant sometimes gets work and for sometimes remained idle, but did not take lenient view. It is also to be seen that when the appellant was ousted from the house of matrimonial, it is quite natural that while the appellant is residing in her parental home, thought it fit that she would not be burdened on her parents, and therefore, started working as labourer and was earning Rs.50/- per day looking to the availability of work and even if it is held that the appellant is working as labourer for few days in a month, then also the respondent husband cannot escape from maintaining the appellant as, according to A.W.2 Munia Bai, appellant does not get work on every day basis and remains idle for sometimes and as per the evidence of father Dashrath (A.W.4), the appellant is a weak person. It is surprised to note that he learned Family Court, having held that the appellant is legally wedded wife and that the appellant used to earn Rs.5,000/- and that the appellant sometimes gets work and for sometimes remained idle, ought to have granted at least some sufficient amount for her maintenance, but the learned Family Court has totally fallen in error in not granting even single penny. The finding of the learned Family Court in not granting even single penny towards maintenance to the appellant deserves to be set aside. 15. Consequently, the order impugned dated 29.08.2011 passed by the learned Family Court is hereby set aside. The application filed by the appellant is also allowed. The respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month to the appellant towards maintenance from the date of filing of application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., i.e., 07.06.2010. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.