Hon’ble Amar Singh Chauhan, J.—This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 30.10.2010 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Case No. 302 of 2009 whereby the application moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the revisionist-Smt. Nidhi Jain was rejected.

2. However, by the same order dated 30.10.2010, learned Judge allowed maintenance to revisionist Nos. 2 and 3 Shreyash Jain and Aditya Jain, minor sons of the revisionist and opposite party No. 2 at the rate of Rs. 2000/- (rupees two thousand) per month each from the date of order, which is not under challenge in this revision.

3. The facts which are requisite to be mentioned for adjudication of this revision are that an application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure was moved by the applicant-revisionist Smt. Nidhi Jain for herself and on behalf of her minor sons Shreyash Jain and Aditya Jain to the effect that her marriage took place with opposite party-Devesh Jain on 10.5.2003 as per Jain rites. Her husband Devesh and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry and they used to misbehave with the applicant. From their wedlock two sons were born. Devesh-opposite party filed a suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but thereafter matter was compromised and they used to live together as husband and wife. After some times again, opposite party filed a suit for divorce and tortured her to the extent that it became impossible for the applicant to live in her in-laws house. On 18.8.2009 applicant No. 1 alongwith her minor sons were kicked out of the house and since then she is dependent upon her parents. It is also alleged in the application that opposite party is a businessman and earns Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac) per month. In addition thereto he also earns Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) from flour mill.

4. In his written argument Devesh Jain, opposite party denied the allegations leveled in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is mentioned that neither he nor his family members ever demanded money nor ever beaten her. Revisionist is living in her Maika on her own wishes. It is further mentioned that conduct of the revisionist-wife was not good towards her in-laws and she used to quarrel and insult them. He also filed a suit for divorce in the Family Court at Bhopal, which is pending. Revisionist-wife is M.Sc. and gives tuition and earns Rs. 15,000/- per month, whereas his income is Rs. 1,17,454/- yearly.

5. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi after evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties, rejected the claim of the applicant-Smt. Nidhi Jain on the ground that she does not follow Jainism and criticized her husband and his family members. She also criticized her in-laws due to inter castes marriage of her Nand. She also address her father-in-law as ‘Hakla’ and mother-in-law as ‘Tooti’ and insult them and due to her misbehaviour and character, she could not adjust herself in her in-laws house. However, by the same order learned Judge granted maintenance to the minor sons Shreyash and Aditya.

6. Heard Shri A.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the revisionists, Shri Dharmendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record of the case.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that learned Family Court has erred in rejecting the claim of the revisionist No. 1 Smt. Nidhi Jain only on the ground that she failed to adjust herself in the family of her husband, but wife’s right to claim maintenance can only be denied in the circumstances as provided under Section 125(4) of the Code.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submitted that opposite party No. 2 is running a firm in the name and style of M/s Jain Enterprises and earning Rs. 100,000/- (rupees one lac) per month and also has a flour mill in which he earned Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) per month and his economically condit