IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the purpose of section 125 of Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, and it is a measure of social justice to protect women and children. The court emphasized that the consideration of which party was wrong or whether the wife was guilty of desertion without reason is irrelevant in maintenance proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this Revision Application under section 397 of Cr.P.C., wife being original petitioner assails legality and propriety of impugned order dated 06.07.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.133 of 2015, whereby, the petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance qua herself is dismissed.

2. Facts of the case are as under :-

2.1. Marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent no.1 on 28.10.2002 as per Hindu rites. It is the case that after marriage, the petitioner started residing with respondent husband and out of said wedlock baby girl was born on 17.09.2003. Initially the petitioner was treated well, but after the birth of daughter, the husband and in laws of the petitioner started ill treating the petitioner by taunting the petitioner and used to demand more amount of dowry. On 22.06.2008, the petitioner was beaten by respondent and was driven out of matrimonial home and she was constrained to stay at her parental home at Gandhinagar. After coming back to parental house, the parents of the petitioner tried to convince in laws, however, they were not agreeable to take the petitioner back. As the petitioner did not have any source of income and as respondent husband did not make any arrangement either to take back the petitioner also minor daughter or make arrangment for her maintenance, the petitioner preferred an application seeking monthly maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- per month from respondent husband. The application preferred by the petitioner came to be partly allowed vide impugned order dated 06.07.2017 in favour of minor daughter, whereby respondent husband was directed to make payment of Rs.8,000/- per month towards maintenance. However, said application was rejected so far as petitioner wife is concerned. Hence, this Revision Application.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sandeep Patel for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Prerak Oza for the respondent husband.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that learned Trial Court has erred in passing impugned order. It is further submitted that no evidence of desertion is ever placed before the learned Trial Court, but the learned Trial Court on its own believed that there was desertion on the part of the petitioner - wife to negate relief of maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is submitted that approach of learned Trial Court is against scope and object of section 125 of Cr.P.C., which is mainly to maintain destitute wife. It is submitted that in the present case, learned Trial Court has taken hyper technical approach to deny maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that incident on 22.06.2008 which is narrated in the petition which raised quarrel between the parties is proved and also believed by the learned Trial Court, yet learned Trial Court out of blue believed that wife has deserted husband. It is submitted that this finding is against settled principle of law and as such error is crept and therefore, present petition deserves consideration.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Oza for the respondent husband referring to impugned order would submit that learned Trial Court has categorically noted that husband was keeping wife with all dignity. He has send wife for conducting courses on swimming and also helped in doing parlor course and he has given various gifts as well as husband has facilitated wife in medical treatment. All these can imply that husband has taken due care in the matrimonial life but the wife on her own came out from matrimonial house. She has deserted husband. There is clear finding qua this aspect by the learned Trial Court. In view of that, since wife left her matrimonial house on her own, it cannot be said that husband has left the wife or wife was forced to leave the matrimonial house and in that event, section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. is attracted. Wife has deserted her husband and therefore, wi