S.C. Das, J.

1. This is a petition, filed under Section 397 of Cr. P.C. praying for revision of judgment & order, dated 21.06.2011, passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala in connection with Misc. Case No. 350 of 2010 under Section 125 of Cr PC. The petition was filed, on 08.06.2012 and notice was directed against the respondent but the respondent has chosen to remain absent on receipt of notice. Office note, dated 04.09.2012, shows that the notice has been duly served on the respondent. Order dated 23.08.2012, passed by this Court, shows that an attempt shall be made to hear the entire matter, on the returnable date and hence the case is taken up for hearing.

2. At the very inception, learned counsel, Mr. Das Choudhury submits that mistakenly he has presented the petitions under Section 397 of Cr. P.C. but the petition ought to be one under Section 19(4) of the Family Court's act and for fair ends of justice, learned counsel prays for converting it to a petition under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act.

3. The order, challenged in the revisional application, has been passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala and hence to challenge the order one has to make the application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. The revisional application under Section 397 of Cr. P.C. would apply, had the order been passed by a Magistrate in exercise of power as vested under Criminal Procedure Code. Since the impugned order has been passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, and the petitioner preferred the revisional application before this Court directly, hence the prayer to convert it as an application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act is allowed and the petition is accordingly converted.

4. Facts of the case, in short, may be stated thus:-

The petitioner approached the Judge, Family Court, Agartala West Tripura by an application under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. praying for granting her maintenance @ Rs. 5,000/- per month on the ground that since after her marriage with the respondent, she was subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home and that she had to take shelter in her parents' house having no independent source of income and that the respondent husband having sufficient means neglected and/or refused to maintain the petitioner and therefore, she prayed before the learned Judge, Family Court to grant her maintenance and to direct the husband-opposite party to pay an adequate maintenance.

Respondent contested the case stating inter alia that father of the petitioner was interested to keep the petitioner and the respondent in the parental house of the petitioner which was opposed by the respondent and therefore, the petitioner left the house of the respondent and living apart voluntarily, and as such, there was no reason at all to pay maintenance on his part to the petitioner and her application should be rejected.

Both side adduced evidence before the learned Judge, Family Court and the learned Judge was pleased to refuse the prayer of maintenance made by the petitioner.

5. Heard learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Das Choudhury for the petitioner.

6. I have meticulously gone through the impugned judgment, passed by learned Judge, Family Court and also gone through the evidence and materials on record.

Marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the petitioner (wife) has no independent source of income to maintain herself. Under such circumstances, it is the obligation and the boundant duty of the husband to maintain his wife. There is no case of the respondent that he has no sufficient means to maintain the petitioner (wife). It is an admitted fact that the petitioner (wife) is living apart from her husband and residing with her parents' in the parental home, The case of the petitioner is that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband and therefore, she was compelled to take shelter in her parents' house. The respondent (husband) disputed the fact st