JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this Revision Application under section 397 of Cr.P.C., wife being original petitioner assails legality and propriety of impugned order dated 06.07.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.133 of 2015, whereby, the petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance qua herself is dismissed. 2. Facts of the case are as under :- 2.1. Marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent no.1 on 28.10.2002 as per Hindu rites. It is the case that after marriage, the petitioner started residing with respondent husband and out of said wedlock baby girl was born on 17.09.2003. Initially the petitioner was treated well, but after the birth of daughter, the husband and in laws of the petitioner started ill treating the petitioner by taunting the petitioner and used to demand more amount of dowry. On 22.06.2008, the petitioner was beaten by respondent and was driven out of matrimonial home and she was constrained to stay at her parental home at Gandhinagar. After coming back to parental house, the parents of the petitioner tried to convince in laws, however, they were not agreeable to take the petitioner back. As the petitioner did not have any source of income and as respondent husband did not make any arrangement either to take back the petitioner also minor daughter or make arrangment for her maintenance, the petitioner preferred an application seeking monthly maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- per month from respondent husband. The application preferred by the petitioner came to be partly allowed vide impugned order dated 06.07.2017 in favour of minor daughter, whereby respondent husband was directed to make payment of Rs.8,000/- per month towards maintenance. However, said application was rejected so far as petitioner wife is concerned. Hence, this Revision Application. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sandeep Patel for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Prerak Oza for the respondent husband. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that learned Trial Court has erred in passing impugned order. However, said application was rejected so far as petitioner wife is concerned. Hence, this Revision Application. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sandeep Patel for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Prerak Oza for the respondent husband. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that learned Trial Court has erred in passing impugned order. It is further submitted that no evidence of desertion is ever placed before the learned Trial Court, but the learned Trial Court on its own believed that there was desertion on the part of the petitioner - wife to negate relief of maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is submitted that approach of learned Trial Court is against scope and object of section 125 of Cr.P.C., which is mainly to maintain destitute wife. It is submitted that in the present case, learned Trial Court has taken hyper technical approach to deny maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that incident on 22.06.2008 which is narrated in the petition which raised quarrel between the parties is proved and also believed by the learned Trial Court, yet learned Trial Court out of blue believed that wife has deserted husband. It is submitted that this finding is against settled principle of law and as such error is crept and therefore, present petition deserves consideration. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Oza for the respondent husband referring to impugned order would submit that learned Trial Court has categorically noted that husband was keeping wife with all dignity. He has send wife for conducting courses on swimming and also helped in doing parlor course and he has given various gifts as well as husband has facilitated wife in medical treatment. All these can imply that husband has taken due care in the matrimonial life but the wife on her own came out from matrimonial house. She has deserted husband. There is clear finding qua this aspect by the learned Trial Court. In view of that, since wife left her matrimonial house on her own, it cannot be said that husband has left the wife or wife was forced to leave the matrimonial house and in that event, section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. is attracted. Wife has deserted her husband and therefore, wife is not entitled for maintenance. In view of that, since wife left her matrimonial house on her own, it cannot be said that husband has left the wife or wife was forced to leave the matrimonial house and in that event, section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. is attracted. Wife has deserted her husband and therefore, wife is not entitled for maintenance. Learned Trial Court has rightly noted that aspect and arrived at conclusion, no error much less error of understanding law arises and therefore, present Revision Application is bereft of merits and requires to be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and perused impugned order. What appears that reasoning part in impugned judgment is in para 10. It is in Gujarati language, for better understanding, it is translated in English. Translated version of para 10 reads as under :- "(10). Now, if we discuss the evidences produced, it is found that the applicant has repeated the facts of the application in his examination-in-chief and the opponent has repeated the facts of his written reply in his examination-in-chief. The applicant has admitted in the cross-examination of his deposition that “her qualification is B.A., LLB and she has also done Beauty Parlour Course. Daughter was born at Surat. The opponent is presently staying in a rented house. Over and above the rent, the opponent has to bear the cost of maintenance, light-bill, grocery and the lady engaged for cooking.” The applicant has further stated that she is not willing to go back even if the opponent is willing to take her back on the conditions laid down by her. On perusal of the application of the applicant as well as the evidence produced for the applicant, it is stated by the applicant in her application as well as in examination-in-chief that though she and her parents have persuaded the opponent, she has not been escorted back by the opponent. It is noteworthy at this stage that when this Court had tried to work out compromise, the opponent had showed full willingness to take back the applicant-wife as per the conditions laid down by her; however, the applicant-wife denied to go back with the opponent. It is noteworthy at this stage that when this Court had tried to work out compromise, the opponent had showed full willingness to take back the applicant-wife as per the conditions laid down by her; however, the applicant-wife denied to go back with the opponent. Moreover, it is also proved from the depositions of the three witnesses examined for the opponent that all the efforts were made for compromise by the opponent and even at that time, no compromising attitude was found on part of the applicant. Moreover, on perusal of the entire evidence of the applicant, it is found that except for the incident of 22/06/2008, all the other allegations levelled by the applicant against the opponent are vague. It is noteworthy that it is not such that the allegations of harassment should be found to be true only when the applicant-wife has lodged police complaint. Considering the conditions and circumstances of each case of the Family Court, it should be decided as to whether the applicant-wife was actually subjected to harassment. The applicant-wife of the present case has not examined any independent witness regarding so called harassment. Even her cousin, who frequently came to take her back after the incident dated 22/06/08, has not been examined. The incident is regarding she having been assaulted by opponent, but neither the treatment papers regarding the same have been produced, nor there is any evidence regarding police complaint or application having been made. Further, it is to be noted that disputes occur in marital life between husband and wife. It does not mean that the wife should desert her husband. It is clearly proved in the present case on the basis of the depositions of the witnesses examined for the opponent as well as Exh.24, Exh.25, Exh.26, Exh.27, Exh.28, Exh.35, and Exh.36 that the opponent was behaving well the applicant and he used to give respect to her as wife. She was sent to learn swimming and do the course of parlour and the opponent even sent gifts for daughter. Moreover, the delivery of the applicant was done at Surat and it is proved from the documents of Exh.30 and Exh.31 that treatment was given to the applicant during the delivery and other medical treatment was also given to the applicant. Moreover, the delivery of the applicant was done at Surat and it is proved from the documents of Exh.30 and Exh.31 that treatment was given to the applicant during the delivery and other medical treatment was also given to the applicant. It is noteworthy at this juncture that during the pendency of this case, the opponent has given gifts to his minor daughter and he has even paid fees for her studies. This behaviour of the opponent is worth appreciating. It is noteworthy that, on taking into consideration the behaviour of the applicant at the time of the compromise attempts of this Court, it is found that the applicant is refusing to go to live with the opponent without any justifiable reason and on the basis of the evidence produced, there is reason to believe that the applicant has deserted the opponent on her own without any justifiable ground and she is willingly staying at her maternal home in Gandhinagar. Under all the circumstances, when the Court arrives at the finding that the applicant has deserted the opponent without any justifiable reason, the applicant wife is not entitled to get any maintenance from the opponent as per the Section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code." 7. Having gone through impugned order, more particularly, para 10, what appears that during pendency of proceedings under section 125 of Cr.P.C., learned Family Judge tried to settle the dispute between the parities and played role of either mediator or conciliator. Unfortunately, the compromise did not materialized. Learned Family Court picked up this issue against wife to say that wife has deserted husband. This is surprising reasons. This Court is unable to understand how the Court which played role in mediating the issue could take up inter-se talks taken place in the mediation process, as a reason to deny maintenance or arrived at conclusion that wife has deserted husband. The Court should refrain either from conducing the matter or disclosing facts forming part of discussion, while passing the order. It seems that learned Family Judge was biased against the wife since she refused to live with husband. The Court should refrain either from conducing the matter or disclosing facts forming part of discussion, while passing the order. It seems that learned Family Judge was biased against the wife since she refused to live with husband. Finding arrived in para 10 of the impugned order clearly display that learned Family Judge instead of deciding the matter on its own merits, after understanding scope and object of section 125 of Cr.P.C. decided the same on virtue that since wife has not followed the discourse of mediation or conciliation, she is not entitled to maintenance. It is sorry state of reasons. One should understand that proceedings under section 125 of Cr.P.C. is based upon social need of wife who is forced to leave matrimonial house is seeking maintenance under summary proceedings and she is not required to prove her case alike prosecution is required to prove in criminal case i.e. from the angle of beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Family Court observed that the petitioner has not examined the person who came to take her on 22.06.2008 after quarrel took place. I am afraid, how such kind of finding can be maintained under section 125 of Cr.P.C. Further, it is observed that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that husband has beaten her or has not produced any other evidence to prove that she has been deserted. All these findings runs contrary to the scope and object of section 125 of Cr.P.C. 8. The whole intent and purpose of section 125 is to achieve a social purpose. In the case of Chaturbhuj v/s. Sita Bai [ (2008) 2 SCC 316 ], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- "The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The phrase "unable to maintain herself" in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. ( AIR 1978 SC 1807 ) falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). 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." 9. Aforesaid position of law was highlighted in the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v/s. State of Gujarat [ (2005) 3 SCC 636 ]. 10. Main ground to reject maintenance application under section 125 is on the reason of desertion by the wife. To be noted that in the proceedings under section 125 of Cr.P.C., consideration as to which of the parties was wrong is irrelevant, so also whether the wife was guilty of desertion without reason. Maintenance should be awarded to wife if she is unable to maintain herself and her husband in spite of having sufficient means has neglected to maintain her. Even if husband has got decree of divorce against wife on the ground of wife having deserted hi,, it is no bar for the wife to claim maintenance against the husband under section 125 of Cr.P.C. [see : Rohtash Singh vs. Ramendra - (2000) 2 SCC 180]. 11. Needless to say that provision under section 125 is measure of social justice extended to protect women and children, the object to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides speedy remedy to deserted women. This is what observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v/s. Bidyut Prava Dixit [ AIR 1999 SC 3348 ]. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that it is summary proceeding and it does not determine the rights of the parties. 12. In the case of Rajathi v/s. C. Ganesan [ (1999) 6 SCC 326 ], the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that it is the husband who has to prove that he has no means and did not neglect or refuse to maintain wife. 13. 12. In the case of Rajathi v/s. C. Ganesan [ (1999) 6 SCC 326 ], the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that it is the husband who has to prove that he has no means and did not neglect or refuse to maintain wife. 13. In the present case, though husband failed to discharge this kind of burden, learned Family Court took responsibility to discharge his obligation. 14. At this juncture, learned advocate Mr. Oza for the respondent husband would submit that learned Family Court has paid Rs.8000/- to daughter who is applicant no.2, which was later on enhanced to Rs.10,000/- and same was also paid to daughter until she attains majority. This submission has hardly any bearing on the claim of the wife. Wife is also entitled to maintain herself and it is obligation of the husband. 15. For the reasons stated herein-above, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned Family Court committed error in rejecting the application of the petitioner -wife - Jagrutiben. Learned Family Court failed to understand the basic purport of section 125 of Cr.P.C. and denied maintenance on the ground that the petitioner - wife did not comply positively in proceedings under section 125 of Cr.P.C. and did not reciprocate to call of living with the husband. Important to note that even behavior of the petitioner has been noted by the learned Family Court in impugned order without recording the same elsewhere during proceedings. Again it is error of law, learned Family Court cannot do so. 16. For the reasons recorded above, the Criminal Revision Application is allowed. Impugned order dated 06.07.2017 passed by the learned Family Court, Gandhiangar in Criminal Misc. Application No.133 of 2015 is quashed and set aside qua petitioner - Jagrutiben and the matter is remanded back to learned Family Court, Gandhinagar. Learned Family Court, Gandhinagar is directed to decide the issue of maintenance qua petitioner - Jagrutiben within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of present order. It is expected from both the sides to co-operate learned Family Court, Gandhinagar. Cost of present Revision Application being Rs.5,000/- is imposed upon respondent no.1, to be paid to the petitioner.