JUDGMENT : Heard Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Ms. Priyanka Devi Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. By means of this instant criminal revision instituted u/s 397/401 Cr.P.C., the revisionist has assailed the impugned judgement and order dated 06.05.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahoba in Case No. 263 of 2021 (Smt. Maya Devi Vs. Sunil @ Balendra) filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Khanna, District- Mahoba. 3. By the impugned judgement and order, the trial court has rejected the revisionist’s application for maintenance filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. 4. Averment has been made by learned counsel for the revisionist that the trial court has passed the impugned order against the weight of the evidence on record and without application of judicial mind. It has also been submitted that in her matrimonial home, the revisionist was subjected to physical and mental harassment for coercing her to bring additional dowry from her parents. In this regard, a Panchayat was held between the relatives of the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 about 15 days earlier from filing of the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. but the opposite party no. 2 did not agree to keep her without fulfilling his demand of aforesaid additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash. It has also been submitted that revisionist had instituted a complaint case against opposite party no. 2 and his family members for harassment and demand of dowry in which they were summoned by the trial court under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The revisionist had given oral and documentary evidence in this regard in the trial court but the trial court without considering it, rejected her application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that she is staying separately from her husband without any reason and she is not entitled for maintenance. 5. Per contra, averment has been made by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that the trial court has considered the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto and has passed a legal order in which there is no ground for interference. It has next been submitted that since the revisionist is staying separately from her husband without any sufficient reason, her right to maintenance is barred u/s 125 (4) Cr.P.C. 6. It has next been submitted that since the revisionist is staying separately from her husband without any sufficient reason, her right to maintenance is barred u/s 125 (4) Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have been heard. Perused the entire evidence present on the revision and the impugned judgement and order passed by the revisional court. 7. Both the parties have admitted in their pleadings that the revisionist was married to opposite party no. 2 on 09.12.2020 and after marriage, she stayed in her matrimonial home till March, 2021. In between, she visited her parental home for 2-3 times. The revisionist has no children from her marriage with opposite party no. 2. On the issue of the revisionist staying away from her husband in her paternal home, pleading has been made on behalf of the revisionist that in her matrimonial home, her husband and her in-laws used to physically and mentally harass her for bringing Rs.1,00,000/- in cash as additional dowry. When she failed to fulfil their demand for additional dowry after beating, they expelled her from her matrimonial home in March, 2021. Since then, she is living in her paternal home. It has also been pleaded that about 15 days before filing of application u/s 125 Cr.P.C., there was a Panchayat held between the relatives of the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 but the opposite party no. 2 refused to take her back to her matrimonial home unless his demand for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- cash was fulfilled. 8. The revisionist, P.W.1 Smt. Maya Devi and P.W.2 Kiran have corroborated the pleadings through their deposition in this regard. On the issue of revisionist staying away from opposite party no. 2, opposite party no. 2 in his written statement has pleaded that since revisionist is B.A. pass and he is only Class- VIII pass, the revisionist was not prepared to stay with him and left him. The fact that revisionist was staying at her paternal home, he has denied that there was any demand for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- against the revisionist nor she was physically or mentally harassed to compel her to bring aforesaid additional dowry. 9. The fact that revisionist was staying at her paternal home, he has denied that there was any demand for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- against the revisionist nor she was physically or mentally harassed to compel her to bring aforesaid additional dowry. 9. Learned Family Court Judge in his impugned judgement and order has alluded that the revisionist has not filed any other evidence in support of her averment that she was physically and mentally harassed for bringing additional dowry and ultimately expelled from her matrimonial home on her failure to do so. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi vs. Pyla Suri Demudu and Another, (2011) 12 SCC 189 has held that in the revision against the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the revisional Court is not required to enter into re-appreciation of evidence recorded in the order granting maintenance but where finding is a negative one, the High Court would entertain the revision revaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion whether the finding reached by the Magistrate are legally sustainable or not. In case where the trial Court has rejected the claim of the wife, minor child and aged parents and dismissed their application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, the revisional Court has jurisdiction to consider the finding of facts recorded by the trial Court and come to a different conclusion for it. 11. From the perusal of the record of the revisional court, it is disclosed that the revisionist, Smt. Maya Devi has instituted a Complaint Case No. 3290 of 2022 (Smt. Maya Devi Vs. Sunil @ Balendra and others) against opposite party no. 2 and his family members. In this complaint case, the trial court vide order dated 07.07.2023 has summoned opposite party no. 2, Sunil @ Balendra, his father Daulat Khangar, mother Smt. Jai Devi, elder brother Shailendra Singh, sister-in-law and younger brother for trial u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 12. From the perusal of the complaint case, it transpires that the revisionist had filed the complaint case before passing of the impugned order dated 06.05.2023 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court. Thus, the finding of trial court that there is no evidence that the revisionist, Smt. Maya Devi was physically and mentally harassed for bringing additional dowry, is perverse and against the evidence on record. Thus, the finding of trial court that there is no evidence that the revisionist, Smt. Maya Devi was physically and mentally harassed for bringing additional dowry, is perverse and against the evidence on record. The deposition of P.W.1 Smt. Maya Devi and P.W.2 Kiran which is unrebutted by their cross-examination by opposite party no. 2 shows that the revisionist was expelled from her matrimonial home for not being able to fulfil the demand of additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and is since then living with her parents. She has filed the aforesaid complaint case against opposite party no. 2 and her in-laws for harassing her to obtain additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- cash. Thus, from the evidence on record, it can be inferred that the revisionist was justified and had reasonable ground to stay away from her husband. The finding of the trial court in this regard being perverse to the evidence on record, cannot be accepted. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in paragraph no. 9 of the judgement in Anju Garg and Another Vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC Online SC 1314 which is as follows : 9. ……...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 this Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena. This 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. 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. 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 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”. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajathi Vs. C. Ganesan, (1999) 6 SCC 326 has held that the words “unable to maintain herself” would mean the 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 the desertion to survive somehow. Section 125 was enacted on the premise that it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, children and parents. It will, therefore, be for him to show that he has no fresh means to discharge his obligation and he did not neglect or refuse to maintain them or anyone of them. The statement of the wife that she was unable to maintain herself would be enough and it would be for the husband to prove otherwise. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 has held that maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social justice to provide recourse to dependant wives and children for their financial support, so as to prevent them from falling into destitution and vagrancy. Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India provides that:- “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children. Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, which envisages a positive role for the State in fostering change towards the empowerment of women, led to the enactment of various legislations from time to time.” 16. Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, which envisages a positive role for the State in fostering change towards the empowerment of women, led to the enactment of various legislations from time to time.” 16. In the case of Chander Parkash Bodh Raj vs. Shila Rani Chander Prakash: 1968 SCC Online Del 52, the Delhi High Court has held that : “an able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able to reasonably maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a 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.” 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra) has approved the above law laid down by the Delhi High Court. 18. In the present case, opposite party no. 2 (husband) has not made any averments in his written statement or his deposition, as he, owing to special circumstances, is not able to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife as well as his daughters. Therefore, it can be concluded that from the earnings of opposite party no. 2 from doing manual labour, he is earning enough to provide maintenance to his wife and daughters. 19. As from perusal of the evidence of revisionist and opposite party no. 2 regarding the income of the parties, it transpires that whereas the revisionist, P.W.1 Smt. Maya Devi and P.W.2 Kiran have deposed that opposite party no.2, Sunil @ Balendra is engaged in the profession of contractor. He has 15-16 bighas of agricultural land and two houses. They have also deposed that the revisionist has no source of any income and is not earning any money by teaching tuitions or stitching and embroidery. D.W.1 Sunil @ Balendra and D.W.2 have deposed that opposite party no. 2 has no agricultural land in his name but his father has four bighas of agricultural land from which they earn Rs.60,000/- per annum and on which three persons are dependant. They have also deposed that opposite party no. D.W.1 Sunil @ Balendra and D.W.2 have deposed that opposite party no. 2 has no agricultural land in his name but his father has four bighas of agricultural land from which they earn Rs.60,000/- per annum and on which three persons are dependant. They have also deposed that opposite party no. 2 is not a contractor but he works as a labourer. No documentary evidence has been filed by either party on the issue of earning of revisionist or opposite party no. 2. 20. Taking cognizance of prevailing wages in the labour market, even an unskilled labourer earns about Rs.500/- per day, thus it can be concluded that opposite party no.2 may be earning about Rs.12,000/- to 14,000/- per month from his wages. Apart from this, admittedly revisionist along with two other family members, ultimately earns Rs.60,000/- per annum from their agricultural land which is to be divided between three sharers. Thus, the income of the revisionist from agricultural land is about Rs.20,000/- per annum. 21. Therefore, it can be concluded that from manual labour as well as earning from agricultural land, the total income of opposite party no. 2 is Rs.15,000/- per month. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129 has held that 25% of the husband’s net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance allowance to the wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance. 23. In Kalyan Dey Chaudhary Vs. Rita Dey Chaudhary Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has followed the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kulbhushan Kumar (supra) that 25% of net income of the husband should be paid to the wife as maintenance. 24. Following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be reasonable to fix Rs.3,750/- as monthly maintenance allowance to Smt. Maya Devi, wife of opposite party no. 2. 25. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal aspect, I am of the view that the order impugned dated 06.05.2023 is erroneous and cannot survive in the eyes of law, therefore, I set-aside the impugned order for the aforesaid reasons. 26. 2. 25. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal aspect, I am of the view that the order impugned dated 06.05.2023 is erroneous and cannot survive in the eyes of law, therefore, I set-aside the impugned order for the aforesaid reasons. 26. Thus, opposite party no.2 shall pay Rs.3,750/- per month as maintenance allowance to his wife, revisionist Smt. Maya Devi from the date of filing of application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. The arrears of maintenance allowance shall be paid by the opposite party no.2 in four equal amounts within a period of six months. The monthly interim maintenance shall be paid regularly till 7th day of each month. The amount of maintenance allowance already paid to the revisionist shall be adjusted in this amount. 27. The present criminal revision is allowed in terms of above mentioned conditions. 28. The copy of the order be sent to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary compliance.