( 1 ) ). The two questions, quite important and interesting too, raised by the petitioner-husband challenging the very spirit and the maintainability of the maintenance proceedings under Sec. 125 of the Criminal Procedure code, 1973 (for short Code) initiated against him by an illegally driven away respondent wife, which this Court is incidentally called upon to interprete and decide are - (i) "whether merely because any wife who is deaf and dumb and because of her said handicapped condition is incapable of making any statement on oath before the Court, can it be said to be legally incompetent to invoke and initiate the beneficial maintenance proceedings under Sec. 125 of the Code in her as well as in her minor childs favour"?; and (ii)"whether any married person who is physically handicapped because of his deafness and dumbness and further financially handicapped as being without any independent personal source of income or any other movable or immovable property and thereby totally dependent and a liability on the family with which he resides, can be said to be a parson having sufficient means within the meaning of Sec. 125 of the Code to be saddled with the liability to pay maintenance to his deserted wife and minor child"?

( 2 ) ). In order to appreciate and interprete the aforesaid two questions in proper perspective, it is necessary first of all to have a brief look at the grass-root facts and circumstances of the case leading to the present petition. The petitioner-Shaileshkumar Doshi of Wankaner and respondent-Dinaben of rajkot, were married at Rajkot, on 10-3-1989. Incidentally, both of them are deaf and dumb. According to the petitioner, he took education at Deaf and dumb School at Bhavnagar and Rajkot, while the respondent-though she knew how to read and write, was unable to speak, After their marriage, both petitioner and the respondent were living quite happily at Wankaner and had got a son nilesh who is aged about an year. It is alleged by the petitioner that after the birth of their son, disturbance started in their matrimonial life, as respondent hardly came for a month to Wankaner to reside with him and on the contrary she continuously went on insisting that he (petitioner) also should stay with her at Rajkot. According to the petitioner, he as such was quite ready and willing to stay at Rajkot, but the same practically was not feasible on account of his handicapped condition as there was no possibility of his getting any job at Rajkot. This intransigent attitude between the spouces ultimately divided and drifted them away in different directions making their staying together impossible. As against this, say of the petitioner, it is the case of the respondent that she was daily taunted, beaten and harassed at her in-laws house at Wankaner, so much so that once even attempt on her life was made when kerosene was sprinkled over her but was ultimately saved because of intervention by neighbours. According to the respondent, she tolerated this short of harass ments for quite some time. However, on 1-12-1990, the petitioner and his mother severely beat her and thereafter the petitioner took her to Rajkot and leaving her alone at bus-station, returned to Wankaner. It was since that day thereafter that she was compelled to reside at her parental home at Rajkot. According to the respondent, the petitioners father was a leading businessman in the town dealing in retail as well as wholesale business of jaggery and was also having immovable property. According to the respondent, it was under the above circumstances that the petitioner having driven her away and refused to maintain her, that on 4-12-1990 she filed an application for maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code, the some being misc. Criminal Application No. 1654 of 1990 pending on the file of the learned jmfc Rajkot, Inter alia praying for the maintenance of her minor son Nilesh and herself to the tune of Rs. 500. 00. 2. 1 The aforesaid application by t