The main legal point established is that under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a person with sufficient means who neglects or refuses to maintain their spouse may be ordered to provide monthly maintenance.

Pritinker Diwaker, J.

1. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 7.10.2009 passed by the Additional Principal Judge (Family Court) Durg at Bemetera, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 216/2007 dismissing the application filed by the Applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 28.8.2002 an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the Applicant seeking maintenance from the non-Applicant herein stating that her marriage with him was solemnized on 9.12.2001 at Kobia, Tehsil Bemetara, District Durg and after living with him hardly for 15 days she was subjected to cruelty by him and his family members for bringing insufficient dowry. It is also stated in the application that at the time of marriage her father had given sufficient dowry but even then she was subjected to cruelty and when it became unbearable, on 19.7.2002 she came down to Bemetara from her matrimonial house at Raipur. In the application filed under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure the Applicant has put in several instances of cruelty meted out to her by the non-Applicant. It is further stated in the application that several efforts were made by her and her parents to get the matter settled but they went in vain as the non-Applicant was not interested to keep her. It is stated that ultimately the report was lodged by the Applicant based on which the offence under Section 498-A IPC was registered against the non Applicant and his family members. It is also stated in the application that she has no source of income to maintain her and that presently she is living with her retired father who is required to take care of her two other sisters and brother also. It is stated that her father does not have any other source of income and his financial condition is critical. It is stated that the non-Applicant is working as Regional Manager in a pharmaceutical company and earning Rs. 15,000 per month there-from and that being husband he is under obligation to maintain her.

3. Countering the averments made by the Applicant, it has been stated by the non-Applicant that a false and fabricated story has been put forth by the Applicant and that it is she who had left her matrimonial home of her own by giving intimation thereof to the Mahila Police Station. He has however denied that his monthly income is Rs. 15,000 and stated that as per the salary slip attached to the reply his monthly income comes to about Rs. 6000. He has also filed his subsequent salary slip showing his salary as Rs. 10,900 per month. It has been further averred by him that the Applicant being an educated woman and well versed with the computer she can earn sufficiently by getting herself employed somewhere and also by giving tuition which she was doing prior to her marriage.

4. In support of her contention, the Applicant has examined herself whereas the non-Applicant has examined himself and one C.P. Sunahala - the employee of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, in support of his case.

5. After hearing the parties and perusing the material available on record the Court below has rejected the application filed by the Applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Counsel for the Applicant submits that the application of the Applicant under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected on two erroneous grounds, firstly that the Applicant is living separately without there being any sufficient reason, and secondly that she has not proved by adducing any evidence that she is unable to maintain her. According to the counsel for the Applicant, it is the non-Applicant who had filed the divorce petition and obtained the decree of divorce and that it is clear from the record that she was abruptly thrown out of the house by the non-Applicant and therefore she had no other option but to live separately. She submits that the Applicant had not deserted the non