1. The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 26.2.2010 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewa in Misc. Criminal case No.16/2009, whereby the maintenance application of the applicant was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the applicant and the respondent were married on 9.5.2002 at Satna. The applicant has preferred an application under section 125 of the CrPC with the facts that for the first year after her marriage, there was no problem to her. In December, 2003, she was sent to her parents’ house and she resided with her parents and uncle in their house but, thereafter, the respondent did not take her back and refused to maintain her. A notice was sent by the respondent and the applicant replied on 4.2.2006. Thereafter, the respondent had lodged a divorce petition before the competent Court and on 27.9.2008, the trial Court passed the decree of divorce against the applicant. The appeal is pending before the High Court. Actually, the applicant was harassed in the house of the respondent. She mentioned so many incidents of harassment done with her. She mentioned the income of the respondent to be Rs.300/- per day and she claimed a maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month.

3. In reply of the application, the respondent denied all the allegations. He has submitted that it was the applicant who deserted the respondent and therefore, he moved a petition for divorce and decree of divorce was granted. The respondent is an unemployed person, who is getting pocket money of Rs.20/- to 25/- per day from his father, who is a pensioner of Railways. Since the applicant was found at fault and decree of divorce was granted in favour of the respondent, therefore, the applicant could not get any maintenance under section 125 of the CrPC and therefore, it is prayed that the application may be dismissed.

4. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the maintenance application of the applicant.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. In the present case, the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Rewa did not assess the dependency of the applicant and capacity of the respondent to pay the maintenance. Quantum of maintenance was not determined and the application was dismissed in omnibus manner. Therefore, it is for this Court to decide that what was the expenditure of the applicant. Whether the respondent is capable to pay the same and what would be the quantum of maintenance and whether the applicant could get the maintenance amount, without residing with the respondent.

7. Renu Gupta (PW 1), Rajendra Prasad (PW 2) and Sarju Sharan (PW 3) have stated about the income of the respondent that he has a small shop of coconut and other materials for pooja before a temple and he was earning a sum of Rs.300/- per day from that shop, whereas the respondent Devendra Gupta (DW 1) has accepted that there was a small shop (Tapra) (kiosk), which was initiated by the father of the respondent and occasionally, the respondent was also sitting at that shop. Both the parties did not show any other source of income of the respondent. In such a small shop, the respondent cannot get a huge income of Rs.300/- per day. If transaction of Rs.3,000/- is done in a day then, it is possible that the respondent could earn a sum of Rs.300/- per day. Though it is alleged by the respondent that shop was of his father but, it is admitted that the father of the respondent is a pensioner from Railways and therefore, he was getting a handsome pension from the department and therefore, it was not possible for the father of the respondent that he would have run the shop, whereas his son is unemployed. Under such circumstances, the testimony of the respondent cannot be accepted on this count and the testimony of the witnesses of the applicant can be accepted that the responde