JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr. P.C.) passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revisional Court’) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 16 of 2018, titled as, Rattan Chand versus Banti Devi, whereby, the Revisional Court has reversed the order dated 27.3.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 3, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’)in Petition No. 1-IV/2018/2015, titled as, ‘Banti Devi versus Rattan Chand’. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties to the lis, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 3. Brief facts, leading to filing the present petition, as per record, may be summed up, as under: Petitioner, Banti Devi had filed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, in her favour, from the respondent, on the ground that she was married to the respondent, about 30 years ago from the date of filing the petition. Out of the said wedlock, parties to the petition were blessed with one son. It is her further case that after some time of the marriage, respondent started beating and maltreating her, on one pretext or the other and ultimately, she was ousted by the respondent from matrimonial home, and she was forced to take shelter in her parents’ house. Thereafter, respondent contracted second marriage with one Premi Devi. 3.1 All these facts have been pleaded to show that respondent is living adulterous life. 3.2 According to the applicant she is a poor lady and has no means of maintenance and livelihood, whereas, respondent is stated to be serving as Teacher and getting a salary of Rs. 50,000/- per month. 3.3 On the basis of above facts, she has prayed that maintenance @ Rs. 15,000/- per month, be awarded to her. 4. When, put to notice, the petition has been contested by respondent-husband, by taking preliminary objections that the petition is not maintainable and the petitioner was in the habit of leaving the matrimonial home. It is his further case that on 8.10.1985, customary divorce has been taken place, between them. Thereafter, petitioner is stated to have solemnized marriage, twice. 4. When, put to notice, the petition has been contested by respondent-husband, by taking preliminary objections that the petition is not maintainable and the petitioner was in the habit of leaving the matrimonial home. It is his further case that on 8.10.1985, customary divorce has been taken place, between them. Thereafter, petitioner is stated to have solemnized marriage, twice. Firstly, she is stated to have solemnized marriage with one Poushu Ram, and secondly, with one Sai Ram. Now, she is stated to have settled with one Amar Singh, at Sundernagar. 4.1 On merit, the petition has also been contested on the ground that marriage was dissolved by customary divorce, on 8.10.1985. Thereafter, she has solemnized marriage, as mentioned above. All these facts have been pleaded to show that she is not the legally wedded wife of the respondent. 4.2 It is the further case of the respondent that petitioner and respondent have been blessed with one son, Ranjeet Singh. As per the respondent, thereafter, petitioner had solemnized marriage with different persons. She is also stated to have given birth to one Het Ram, whose name has been mentioned, in the records of Gram Panchayat, Tungdhar. 4.3 Rest of the allegations have been denied. Hence, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition. 5. Petitioner had filed rejoinder, denying the allegations that she was in the habit of leaving the matrimonial home, and that customary divorce had taken place, on 8.10.1985. She has also denied that she has solemnized marriage firstly, with Poushu Ram, then, with Sai Ram and thereafter, with Amar Singh. She has specifically denied that divorce has ever taken place between them, as divorce can only be granted by the competent Court of Law, under Hindu Marriage Act. Other allegations have also been controverted. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to adduce evidence. In order to substantiate her stand, she had led evidence. Thereafter, respondent has also examined witnesses. 7. The learned trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the petition, on 27.3.2018, by granting maintenance @ Rs. 5000/- per month, from the date of order. 8. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to adduce evidence. In order to substantiate her stand, she had led evidence. Thereafter, respondent has also examined witnesses. 7. The learned trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the petition, on 27.3.2018, by granting maintenance @ Rs. 5000/- per month, from the date of order. 8. Against the aforesaid order, petitioner Banti Devi had preferred a Criminal Revision Petition, bearing No. 12 of 2018, for enhancement of the maintenance allowance, whereas, respondent had preferred Criminal Revision Petition No. 16 of 2018, against the order, passed by the learned trial Court, by virtue of which, he was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 5000/-, from the date of order. 9. The learned Revisional Court has decided both the Cr. Revision Petitions, vide judgment dated 27.8.2021. Vide judgment dated 27.8.2021, petition filed by respondent Rattan Chand was ordered to be allowed, whereas, petition filed by Banti Devi was ordered to be dismissed. 10. Feeling aggrieved from the said order, the present Petition has been filed on the ground that the learned Revisional Court has wrongly relied upon the photo copy of alleged customary divorce, as the same has not been proved, in accordance with law. 11. According to the petitioner, learned Revisional Court has not appreciated the settled proposition of law that the customary divorce can be held valid, only when it is proved that there is custom to dissoslve the marriage, prevalent in their community. Findings of the learned Revisional Court are stated to be perverse. 12. Another ground of challenge is that the learned trial Court has also not appreciated the law that there is no limitation for claiming maintenance and even divorced wife is also entitled to claim maintenance. 13. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate, has prayed that the present petition may be allowed by setting aside the order, passed by the learned Revisional Court and the order passed by the learned trial Court is prayed to be restored, by enhancing the amount of maintenance, according to the income of the respondent. 14. Per contra, Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate, has prayed that the present petition may be allowed by setting aside the order, passed by the learned Revisional Court and the order passed by the learned trial Court is prayed to be restored, by enhancing the amount of maintenance, according to the income of the respondent. 14. Per contra, Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband has supported the order passed by the Revisional Court, on the ground that the evidence, so adduced, before the learned trial Court has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court, whereas, the learned Revisional Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and passed the order, by dismissing the petition, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner-wife. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the present petition. 15. In order to decide the controversy, involved in the present petition, the evidence, so adduced, by the parties, to the lis, is required to be discussed, as the order, granting maintenance has been set aside, by the learned Revisional Court, mainly on the ground of customary divorce, and on the ground that petitioner-wife is residing separately, voluntarily. 16. Before the learned trial Court, Banti Devi herself appeared in the witness box and deposed about the fact that she was married to respondent, about 31 years ago and they have been blessed with two sons. According to her, after some time of the marriage, respondent started quarreling with her and thrown her out of matrimonial home. Thereafter, she was forced to reside in her parents’ house. Thereafter, respondent solemnized marriage with Premi Devi. 16.1 According to this witness, the respondent is working as School Master. As such, he is getting Rs. 60,000/- per month. Lastly, she has stated that neither her marriage has been dissolved by way of divorce, nor she has solemnized marriage with anyone. 16.2. In the cross-examination, she has deposed that she is about 50 years of age. Further, she does not remember about the age of her elder son. According to her, she has stayed with the respondent for about one year and three months. She has further deposed that thereafter, she has filed Court case. She has admitted that reference of the said case is not given in the present case. Further, she does not remember about the age of her elder son. According to her, she has stayed with the respondent for about one year and three months. She has further deposed that thereafter, she has filed Court case. She has admitted that reference of the said case is not given in the present case. She has given explanation that her husband had assured her that he will take her back to the matrimonial home, in case, she withdrew the case. 16.3. This witness has admitted that in the Pariwar Register, only her name and the name of her son have been entered. She has admitted that in the earlier case, she has given reference of her elder son, whereas, reference of younger son has not been given. Said case is stated to have remained pending for about seven years. She has denied that customary divorce took place between the parties, on 8.10.1985. Her son is stated to be married and blessed with two children. Petitioner is stated to be residing with him. She has denied that she has voluntarily left the company of respondent. Rest of the suggestions, with regard to her alleged marriage with Poushu Ram, Sai Ram and Amar Singh, have been denied. 17. To rebut this evidence, respondent Rattan Chand appeared in the witness box. He has deposed as per the stand, taken by him, in the reply. According to him, he was married to petitioner, in the year 1984. Divorce is stated to have taken place between them with mutual consent. As per the respondent, when, his marriage was allegedly dissolved, at that time, only one son, namely, Ranjeet Singh, was born from the said wedlock. Ranjeet Singh was about 22 days, at the relevant time. He has further deposed that after getting divorce from the petitioner, her name was deleted from the Pariwar Register. Thereafter, respondent is stated to have solemnized marriage with one Premi Devi, as per Hindu rites. 17.1. He has further deposed that after dissolution of marriage with Banti Devi, she had solemnized marriage thrice, firstly with Poushu Ran, secondly with Sai Ram and on the date, when, he appeared in the witness box, she was stated to be residing with one Amar Singh. According to his further deposition, Banti Devi was doing illegal business of distilling liquor and Amar Singh is stated to be helping her, in the said business. According to his further deposition, Banti Devi was doing illegal business of distilling liquor and Amar Singh is stated to be helping her, in the said business. Banti Devi had given birth to his son Het Ram, who is working as mason. Banti Devi is stated to be a lady of easy virtue. He has further deposed that in order to harass him, present case has been filed. He has submitted the copies of Pariwar Register are Ext. R-1 and Ext R-2. Talaknama is Mark-X, and certificate is R-4. 17.2. This witness has admitted in his cross- examination that divorce was not obtained from any Court. At the time of divorce, brother of this witness, namely Paras Ram, was the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. 17.3. Banti Devi is stated to have left the company of this witness after one year and three months of marriage. He has denied that no divorce had taken place between him and petitioner and due to pressure of his brother, name of Banti Devi was deleted from the Panchayat record. He has admitted that thereafter, he has solemnized the marriage with Premi Devi. 17.4. This witness has further admitted that name of the petitioner has not been entered in the Panchayat, on the basis of her alleged marriage with Poushu Ram, Sai Ram and Amar Singh, nor said fact has been recorded in any of the government documents. 17.5. According to this witness, Banti Devi is doing illicit business of distilling liquor, in village Majakhad. Lastly, he has deposed that he is getting a sum of Rs. 52,000/- per month, as salary. 18. RW-2 Ram Lal is witness to the document Mark-X, i.e. Talaknama. According to him, said document was written by him. Talaknama is stated to have been written by him, at the instance of Rattan Chand, respondent. For that purpose, he was called by the parents of the parties to the lis. Talaknama is stated to have been prepared with the consent of both the parties. This witness is not the deed writer. He has feigned his ignorance about the fact that after promulgation of Hindu Marriage Act, divorce can only be obtained by filing petition in the Court. However, as per him, in the area of Siraj, marriages are not performed, as per Hindu Law. 19. RW-3 Dharam Chand deposed that Poushu Ram is his maternal uncle. He has feigned his ignorance about the fact that after promulgation of Hindu Marriage Act, divorce can only be obtained by filing petition in the Court. However, as per him, in the area of Siraj, marriages are not performed, as per Hindu Law. 19. RW-3 Dharam Chand deposed that Poushu Ram is his maternal uncle. Banti Devi is stated to have solemnized marriage with his uncle, in the year 1994. As per him, after residing with him, for about one year, dispute had arisen between them. Banti Devi is stated to have given birth to a son, namely, Het Ram. 19.1. This witness has further deposed that Banti Devi was pressurizing Poushu Ram to give his name to her son Het Ram, for which, Poushu Ram did not agree. Thereafter, Banti Devi had started residing with Sai Ram, where, she resided only for about 2-2 ½ years. Thereafter, this witness does not know as to where she is residing. He has further deposed that maternal uncle of this witness, Poushu Ram, has expired. This witness had not attended the marriage of Poushu Ram, however, his mother had attended the marriage of Poushu Ram and Banti Devi. 20. This is the entire evidence, led by the respondent. 21. The learned trial Court, in the present case, has awarded maintenance @ Rs. 5000/- per month, from the date of order, i.e. 27.3.2018, whereas, petition has been filed on 11.5.2015. 22. The learned Revisional Court, in the present case, has set aside the order, on the ground that petitioner is residing separately, on the basis of Section 125(4) Cr. P.C. The provisions of Section 125 Cr. P.C. are reproduced, as under: 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents 1. 22. The learned Revisional Court, in the present case, has set aside the order, on the ground that petitioner is residing separately, on the basis of Section 125(4) Cr. P.C. The provisions of Section 125 Cr. P.C. are reproduced, as under: 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents 1. If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain; (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct; Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means. Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this Sub-Section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct; Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person. For the purposes of this Chapter: a) “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority; b) “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. 2. Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be. 3. If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole, or any port of each month’s allowance allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made; Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due; Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. 4. No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her, husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. 5. No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her, husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. 5. On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order. 23. The learned Revisional Court, in this case, has also not accepted the contention of the respondent-husband, with regard to customary divorce from the petitioner. However, on the basis of provisions of Section 125 (4) Cr. P.C., it has been held that Banti Devi had left the company of respondent Rattan Chand, after living with him, for about one year and three months. Thereafter, she had not claimed maintenance from him. 24. The said findings do not stand in the judicial scrutiny of this Court, as no limitation has been prescribed for seeking maintenance, as per Section 125 Cr. P.C. Maintenance has to be granted either from the date of application, or date of order, as the case may be. 25. Even otherwise, petitioner has not sought relief of maintenance, from the date, when, the respondent allegedly had thrown her out of matrimonial home. 26. It is not the case of the respondent that petitioner had started residing separately, on the basis of mutual consent. Respondent had taken the plea that marriage of the parties to the lis, was dissolved, on the basis of alleged customary divorce. The said plea of customary divorce has been negated by the learned trial Court, as well as, by the learned Revisional Court, and those findings have not been assailed by respondent Rattan Chand, by preferring the petition, before this Court. 27. Once, the findings, qua non-proof of customary divorce, have been upheld by the Revisional Court, then, in the absence of any challenge to the same by the respondent, the said findings have attained finality. 28. 27. Once, the findings, qua non-proof of customary divorce, have been upheld by the Revisional Court, then, in the absence of any challenge to the same by the respondent, the said findings have attained finality. 28. In this case, respondent could not prove customary divorce, nor he could probabilize the fact that after alleged customary divorce, petitioner, firstly married Poushu Ram, then, Sai Ram, and at the relevant time, she was residing with Amar Singh. It is also not the case of the respondent that after leaving the matrimonial home, petitioner was living in adultery. 29. The findings of the learned Revisional Court that the parties to the petition are living separately by mutual consent, are also not sustainable in the eyes of law, as it is neither the case of the petitioner, nor it has been pleaded by respondent that they are residing separately, on the basis of mutual consent. 30. The petitioner had taken the plea that she was thrown out of matrimonial home, whereas the respondent has taken the plea of mutual customary, and the factum of customary divorce, has not been proved, in this case. 31. Consequently, the order passed by the learned Revisional Court is set aside and the order passed by the learned trial Court is restored. 32. Keeping in view the fact that respondent has admitted that he was getting a sum of Rs. 52,000/- as salary, in the considered opinion of this Court, the amount of maintenance, which has been awarded by the learned trial Court, is on the lower side. As such, amount of maintenance is ordered to be enhanced from a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month, to Rs. 10000/- per month. 33. In the absence of any evidence on record to show that petitioner was responsible for delay in passing the order in the petition, under Section 125 Cr. P.C., order of the learned trial Court, granting maintenance, from the date of order, is liable to be modified and the petitioner is held entitled for maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- per month, from the date of petition. 34. With these observations, the present petition is allowed, in aforesaid terms. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.