1. - By this petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 25.3.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (for short "the Revisional Court') dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner and affirming the order dated 11.2.2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh (for short `the trial Court') awarding maintenance to the non-petitioner.

2. The facts of the case, relevant and necessary for disposal of this miscellaneous petition, in a nut shell, are that non-petitioner-Smt. Sushila filed an application u/s. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `the Code') before the trial Court, inter alia, alleging that her marriage with petitioner-Ajay took place on 3.7.1998 as per Hindu Customs and they lived together as husband and wife. After marriage, the husband and his family members made a demand for motorcycle and on account of non-fulfilment of this dowry demand, she was turned out from the roof of her in-law's house keeping her clothes, ornaments and other dowry items with them. She made an application u/s. 125 of the Code, with the assertion that she is an illiterate lady, having no independent source of income whereas the husband is having 25 Bighas irrigated land and also carries on business in food-grains and as such he is having the yearly income of about Rs. Two lac from agriculture and business, as such she be allowed a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month as maintenance. The petitioner-husband admitted the factum of marriage but denied all other averments made in the application u/s. 125 of the Code. Giving pedigree of the family, he has stated that out of 9.39 acres of land, his father is having only 1/7 share and out of that 1/7 share, petitioner's share comes to 1/3 thereof. He has further stated that he is a student and has no independent income, rather he has borrowed a sum of Rs. 16,000/- from one Hajari Ram for pursuing Computer Course. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 11.2.2003, partly allowed the application and allowed a sum of Rs. 750/- per month as maintenance to the wife. Aggrieved thereof, both the parties filed revision petitions, which have been dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.3.2004. Hence this miscellaneous petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments passed by the Courts below.

4. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the non-petitioner has miserably failed to prove the income of the petitioner and as such, for want of sufficient income, the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay maintenance to the wife. The essential condition for grant of maintenance is that a person having sufficient means is refusing or neglect to maintain his wife, legitimate or illegitimate children or parents who are unable to maintain himself or herself. Even in the case where the wife had left the house on her own, is no ground to disentitle her to maintenance. In order that a wife can apply for maintenance for herself, she has to allege in the petition and prove before the Magistrate that she is unable to maintain herself; however, omission to aver in the petition is not fatal if there is sufficient proof that the wife has no means of her own. The expression "unable to maintain herself' means unable to earn a livelihood. The earning must be such as to maintain the wife without depending upon others. She will be entitled to maintenance for herself if she can prove that she has no other means or source to maintain herself.

5. In Mannava Satyawati & Ors. v. Mannava Malleshwara Rao & Ors., 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 259 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that because the wife and children had left the house on their own, is no ground to disentitle them to maintenance.

6. In H.C. Mohan v. Smt. Sulochana, 2001 Cr.L.J. 1815 , the Karnataka High Court held that the husband is bound to maintain his wife and the liability of husband to pay ma