A wife may not be entitled to maintenance under Cr.P.C. 125(1) if she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason, as per Cr.P.C. 125(4).

1. As both the parties have appeared in this case, as such this revision application is being heard and is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

2.The petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 19.4.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nalanda in Maintenance Case No.12/M/2009 by which the application for maintenance filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

3. The case in short is that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of O.P.No.2 and she has four daughters and later on the petitioner has not been blessed with a son so the O.P. no.2 re- married with another lady namely Pyari Devi. It is alleged that after marriage with Pyari Devi O.P.No.2 started neglecting her and torture in various manner and several times ousted her from her matrimonial house and she took shelter in the house of her daughters and the daughters of the petitioner are not in a position to maintain her. It appears that thereafter a complaint case was filed by the petitioner and a complaint case has been filed by the O.P.no.2 also against the petitioner. It further appears that thereafter the Maintenance Case No.123/M/2009 was filed by the petitioner against the O.P.no.2 stating that after re-marriage with Pyari Devi he started neglecting her and torture in various manner, as such she is residing in the house of her daughters, who are not in a position to maintain her on the other hand, the O.P.No.2 has sufficient means to maintain the petitioner as he has got 2 acres and 99 decimal cultivable land having gross income annually of Rs.02 lac and apart from that the O.P.no.2 has retired from the Army and got handsome pension also.

4. During the proceeding, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner - one herself and another is Devnarayan Prasad. On the other hand eight witnesses have been examined on behalf of O.P. no.2

5. The learned Family Court after evidence and argument has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has left the house of the O.P.No.2 on her own and in spite of which, O.P.No.2 asked her to come but she did not return and she sold 72 decimals of land purchased by the O.P.No.2 in the name of his daughter at Rs.1,77,000/- to maintain her and also considering the fact that no person either from her Sasural or from her Maike has come forward to depose in favour of the petitioner and considering the aforesaid fact has dismissed the Maintenance Case filed by the petitioner, vide order dated 19.4.2016 passed in Maintenance Case No.123/M/2009.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision application has been preferred on the ground that the petitioner has been ousted from the matrimonial house of the O.P.no.2 which appears from the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner and the evidence further shows that O.P.no.2 is a retired army personnel having pension also apart from that income from other properties, as such O.P.no.2 has sufficient income to maintain her but in spite of that she is not being maintained by the O.P.no.2 . It has further been submitted that the learned Family court without considering the fact that the petitioner has sufficient reasons to live separately and a petition has been filed by the petitioner for maintenance has dismissed her case which is against the spirit of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the O.P.no.2 has supported the impugned order on the ground that in spite of the offer made by the O.P.no.2 to keep her in his house she is not ready to live with the petitioner and moreover she has sold the land which has been purchased by the O.P.No.2 in the name of the petitioner at Rs.1,77,000/- with which he could maintain herself and though he had married with another lady, but with the consent of the petitioner that too 24 years ago and after the marriage also she was living with the O.P.No.2 but later on she left her house as such it is the petitioner who is not ready to