JUDGMENT :

Raj Beer Singh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 despite service of notice.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.02.2022, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur, in Case No.122 of 2016 (Bitola @ Rinku Vs. Dharmender), whereby the application of revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for revisionist submitted that the revisionist is wife of the opposite party No.2 and their marriage has taken place in the year 2013 but after marriage she was harassed by the opposite party No.2 and his family members and that in the month of November, 2014, she was forced to leave her matrimonial home. Referring to the averments and evidence of the parties, it was submitted that there is sufficient evidence to show that the revisionist has sufficient cause and reasons to live separately but her evidence has not been considered by the court below in correct perspective and the case of revisionist was dismissed on the ground that the revisionist is residing separately without any just cause. The alleged decree of restitution of conjugal rights passed in favour of the opposite party No.2 cannot the basis to reject the claim of maintenance. It was further submitted that revisionist has no source of income to maintain herself. The findings rendered by the court below are not based on evidence and thus, impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for revisionist has placed reliance upon the decision of Smt.Kiran Singh vs. State of U.P. and another [Criminal Revision No.896 of 2019], decided on 26.04.2022.

4. Learned AGA submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

6. Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. As per Section 125 of Cr.P.C. if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, his legitimate or illegitimate minor children, whether married or not, and his father or mother unable to maintain themselves, the Magistrate First Class upon proof of such refusal or neglect direct such person to make monthly allowances and to pay the same to such persons from time to time. It is well established that object of grant of maintenance is to afford a subsistence allowance to the wife who is not able to maintain herself. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. Maintenance awarded to a wife is not a bounty. It is awarded to her so that she can survive. The fact that time is spent between the date of the application and a final adjudication and an award in favour of the wife, does not mean that she had enough funds to maintain herself. The provisions of maintenance of wives and children intend to serve a social purpose [see Jagir Kaur & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh , AIR 1963 SC 1521 . In Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal & Ors. , 1969(3) SCC 802 , the Supreme Court, discussing Section 488 of the old Cr.P.C, held that Section 488 provides a summary remedy and is applicable to all persons belonging to any religion and has no relationship with the personal law of the parties. In Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal and Ors. , AIR 1978 SC 1807 , the Court held that Section 125 is a reincarnation of Section 488 of the Cr.P.C. of 1898 except for the fact