JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this Criminal Revision Application filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the revisionist – husband challenges the judgment passed by the learned Family Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.2630 of 2015 by which the learned Family Judge in exercise of power and jurisdiction under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was pleased to grant monthly maintenance at Rs.20,000/- from 12.10.2015. The cost of Rs.2,500/- is also imposed. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present petition can be summarized as under :- 2.1 The revisionist – husband and respondent No.1 got married on 27.09.2012 as per the Hindu rites and rituals at Ahmedabad. After some passage of time, there were some disputes arose between both husband and wife and they got separated in May, 2015. After said period, both husband and wife did not remain together. Hence, the respondent No.1 – wife filed application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., being Criminal Misc. Application No.2630 of 2015 before the Family Court, Ahmedabad and on 03.06.2022, the Family Court, Ahmedabad has passed the impugned judgment and order directing the revisionist – husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) from 12.10.2015. Hence, the present petition. 3. Heard Mr. D.R. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Bhakti Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent – wife. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt would assail the impugned order on two aspects. Firstly, that the learned Family Court has not considered the aspect that without any sufficient reason the wife has left the matrimonial home and therefore, in view of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the wife is not entitled to get the maintenance. Secondly, he would submit that wife is holding Company Secretary (C.S.) degree and she is capable of maintaining herself. In addition thereto, it is also submitted that the husband who was serving on a higher post in Jet Airways has lost his job as Jet Airways is closed and it is under liquidation and therefore, the petitioner has no means to pay the maintenance. Apart from these submissions, he would also submit that the revisionist – husband is burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his unmarried sister as well as parents. Apart from these submissions, he would also submit that the revisionist – husband is burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his unmarried sister as well as parents. Therefore, he would submit that the granting of Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance is too excessive and without application of mind. He would further submit that learned Family Court has erred in interpreting the evidence on record. The wife had given irrelevant answers in the cross-examination undertaken at the behest of the husband. She was not remembering various things and therefore, he would submit that the wife was failed to make out case to get maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 5. Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Bhatt would submit to allow this revision and to quash the impugned order or alternatively to modify the impugned order and to reduce the maintenance amount. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Bhakti Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent – wife fervently objecting to this revision would submit that the revisionist husband is paying monthly installment of Rs.86,000/- towards repayment of loan, even after his version that he has lost the job. This itself is sufficient to say that the revisionist husband is capable to maintain the respondent – wife. She would further submit that the scope and object of Section 125 is to provide immediate relief to enduring destituted wife. It is a social justice. No adversarial system of litigation can be applied here. She would further submit that the learned Family Court has taken into consideration the income of the wife also which was barely around Rs.12,000/- and compared the standard of living of husband and wife. The husband was earning Rs.1,25,000/- and was paying Rs.86,000/- towards loan installment. She would further submit that merely because wife is literate and is holding C.S. degree would not absolve the husband from maintaining his wife. She would further submit that the father of the husband retired from Airline Company. She would further submit that the learned Family Court has minutely assessed all evidence on record, sift and weigh the evidence in context and background of the scope and object of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and granted the maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. She would submit that no error is committed by learned Family Court. She would further submit that presently around more than Rs.17,85,000/- as arrears towards the maintenance against the husband petitioner. She would submit that no error is committed by learned Family Court. She would further submit that presently around more than Rs.17,85,000/- as arrears towards the maintenance against the husband petitioner. He neglects in paying the amount of maintenance and it is difficult for wife to maintain herself on this aspect. Therefore, she submits to dismiss this revision. 7. In rejoinder, learned advocate Mr. Bhatt for the revisionist – husband would submit that the revisionist husband had invested Rs.40,00,000/- in seven properties. It is within knowledge of the wife, but the wife deposed in the cross-examination that she does not know about the said investment. Therefore, the wife is not giving true evidence before the Court to get the maintenance. On such submissions, he would reiterate to allow this revision. 8. Having heard the learned advocates for both sides, at the outset, let us refer the scope and object of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai – (2008) 2 SCC 316 has observed as follows : “5. 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. 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. 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. Having considered the scope and object stated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, if we consider the submission of learned advocate Mr. Bhatt, he would submit that wife without any reason left the matrimonial home and therefore, in view of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C., the wife is not entitled to get maintenance. In Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit – AIR 1999 SC 3348 , the Apex Court succinctly observed that the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice extended to protect women and children, the object to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides speedy and summary remedy to deserted women. 10. On going through the impugned judgment what appears is that learned Family Court has minutely addressed the issue and it is believed by the learned Family Court that the husband has deserted the wife and no other option left for her except to leave the matrimonial home. Ordinarily a married woman would not leave the matrimonial home or left the matrimonial home except in case she has been harassed or deserted. Her leaving of the matrimonial home itself prove that she was subjected to cruelty, may not be upto the harassment and cruelty which is defined in Section 498A of IPC, but once she takes herself off from the matrimonial home, it can be presumed that she was destituted, and on very moment she is entitled to get the maintenance from her husband. It is a moral duty of the husband to pay the maintenance to the wife. It would be noted that Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that to get the maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. This right cannot be defeated upon technicalities. It is a speedy but summary remedy saving the destituted wife from starvation. It is not co-extensive with civil liability. The object of granting maintenance is not to punish but to prevent vagrancy and destitution. 11. This right cannot be defeated upon technicalities. It is a speedy but summary remedy saving the destituted wife from starvation. It is not co-extensive with civil liability. The object of granting maintenance is not to punish but to prevent vagrancy and destitution. 11. At this juncture, I may recollect the argument of Ms.Joshi, learned advocate that presently Rs.17,85,000/- is outstanding against the revisionist – husband as an arrears of maintenance. This clearly spells that the husband has failed to observe even his moral duty, beside statutory mandate. 12. It was another argument of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the wife is having degree of Company Secretary and she could maintain herself because of her decree. The argument cannot be vindicated in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shailaja vs. Khobbanna - AIR 2017 SC 1174 whereby it is observed and held that merely because the wife is capable of earning is not sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance granted to her by the Family Court. 13. Lastly, it was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Bhatt for the revisionist husband that the husband has lost his job as Jet Airways is under liquidation and therefore he is not earning any amount. I cannot substantiate this submission. The principle of ‘able-bodied person’ comes in picture also. It is also comes on record that the revisionist is B.Sc. He was holding higher post in Jet Airways and was paying Rs.86,000/- towards loan installment. In Reema Salkan vs. Sumer singh Salkan - (2019) 12 SCC 303 in paragraph 13, the Supreme Court while reiterating the principle of able-bodied person observed as under:- “13. Be that as it may, the High Court took into account all the relevant aspects and justly rejected the plea of the respondent about inability to pay maintenance amount to the appellant on the finding that he was well educated and an able-bodied person. Therefore, it was not open to the respondent to extricate from his liability to maintain his wife. It would be apposite to advert to the relevant portion of the impugned judgment which reads thus: “80. The respondent during the cross examination has admitted that he too is B.Com, M.A.(Eco.) and MBA from Kentucky University, USA; the respondent is a Canadian citizen working with Sprint Canada and is earning Canadian $(CAD) 29,306.59 as net Annual Salary. It would be apposite to advert to the relevant portion of the impugned judgment which reads thus: “80. The respondent during the cross examination has admitted that he too is B.Com, M.A.(Eco.) and MBA from Kentucky University, USA; the respondent is a Canadian citizen working with Sprint Canada and is earning Canadian $(CAD) 29,306.59 as net Annual Salary. However, he has claimed that he has resigned from Sprint Canada on 23.11.2010 and the same has been accepted on 27.11.2010 and the respondent since then is unemployed and has got no source of income to maintain himself and his family. 81. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 for grant of maintenance as she does not know any skill and specialised work to earn her livelihood i.e. in paragraph 26 of maintenance petition against her husband. However, the respondent husband who is well educated and comes from extremely respectable family simply denies the same. The respondent husband in his written statement does not plead that he is not an able bodied person nor he is able to prove sufficient earning or income of the petitioner. 82. It is an admitted fact emerging on record that both the parties got married as per Hindu Rights and Customs on 24.03.2002 and since then the petitioner was living with her parents from 10.08.2002 onwards, and the parents are under no legal obligation to maintain a married daughter whose husband is living in Canada and having Canadian citizenship. The plea of the respondent that he does not have any source of income and he could not maintain the wife is no answer as he is mature and an able bodied person having good health and physique and he can earn enough on the basis of him being able bodied to meet the expenses of his wife. In this context, the observation made in Chander Prakash v. Shrimati Shila Rani, AIR 1968 Del 174 by this Court is relevant and reproduced as under: "7.........an able bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodied person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable, for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child." 83. The husband being an able-bodied person is duty bound to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself under the personal law arising out of the marital status and is not under contractual obligation. The following observation of the Apex Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, AIR 2014 SC 2875 , is relevant: "2.….Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created where under she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life “dust unto dust”. It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds. 84. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds. 84. The respondent's mere plea that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve himself of his moral duty to maintain his wife in presence of good physique along wit educational qualification.” The view so taken by the High Court is unassailable. Indeed, the respondent has raised a plea to question the correctness of the said view, in the reply affidavit filed in this appeal, but in our opinion, the finding recorded by the High Court is un exceptionable.” (emphasis supplied) 14. Presumption arise that able-bodied young man is capable of earning means to maintain his wife and child, if any. Plea of husband that he is not earning sufficient to maintain wife cannot be accepted. As observed by learned Family Court revisionist-husband was in higher position in Jet Airlines and was earning many bucks, he cannot say that he is not in position to discharge his obligation to maintain wife. Thus, submission of learned advocate Mr. Bhatt that revisionist-husband is not earning sufficient to pay maintenance is rejected. 15. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order is unassailable. Although revisionist husband raised a plea to question the correctness of the view of the learned Family Court, I find no force in the submission of the learned advocate for the revisionist. The learned Family Court has not committed any error much less error of understanding law as well as evidence on record. What further appears is that the revisionist has done nothing but used revision as a tool to harass his wife who is destitute and impecunious, even without paying the arrears of maintenance which is piled upto Rs.17,85,000/-, has pursued this revision which is adding more financial burden upon the wife who is already destituted, running in indigence and impoverished. Therefore, while dismissing the revision, I am inclined to impose cost which is quantified at Rs.15,000/- to be paid to the respondent – wife within a week failing which it shall be recovered as fine.