The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the wife has an absolute right to maintenance, and the husband's lack of work or means to pay cannot defeat this right as long as he is healthy and able-bodied.

S.K. Palo, J.

This petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed to assail the order dated 23.09.2013 passed by IInd Additional Session Judge, Multai, Distt. Betul in Cr.R. No.111/2012 whereby the order passed by JMFC Multai in MCC No.40/2009 dated 25.05.2012 has been reversed and maintenance has been granted @ Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent/wife.

2. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage was performed on 10.02.1997 at Village Chandorakhurd, Teh. Multai.

3. Learned JMFC in the case of MCC No. 40/2009 refused to grant maintenance to the respondent. Therefore, the respondent filed the Criminal Revision No.111/2012 before the IInd ASJ, Multai. Learned IInd ASJ vide impugned order dated 23.09.2013 allowed the revision and granted maintenance as mentioned above. In this revision, the petitioner has assailed the order on the ground that he is a driver and his earning is only Rs.5,000/- per month in a private job. He has to support his blind father and old mother to look after. It is also claimed that the respondent claimed maintenance after a lapse of six years. It is also contended that the respondents/wife is living separately without sufficient cause.

4. In paragraph 9 of the impugned order, the learned Revisional Court has dealt with the question of living separately by the respondent. The learned Court found that the petitioner insisted that she should go to her father's place and bring Rs.1,00,000/- by selling the agricultural land. It is also contended that it was threatened by the petitioner that if she does not do so, the petitioner would go for a second marriage. She also mentioned in her statement that she was beaten by the petitioner and was thrown out of his house. Therefore, she has been living with her parents in compulsion. After having sent message for many times to take to the matrimonial home, the petitioner did not pay any heed.

5. She has no separate income. Her father is dead. She sent a notice on 03.07.2009 demanding maintenance. She also claims that the petitioner is working as a driver and earns Rs.10,000/- as salary. He also owns agricultural land about 9 acres and, from that land, he earns income of about Rs. 1,00,000/- in a year.

6. It is stated by her that after her father died, she sent notice to the respondent for maintenance. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner is serving as a driver. Even if taken for granted that the petitioner has a blind father and old mother to support, the petitioner's liability to maintain the wife cannot be overlooked.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan reported as 2015 Cri.L.J. 2551 held that the statute commands that there has to be some acceptable arrangement that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance does not mean and can never be allowed to mean mere survival. A woman who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither and arrange for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to live in similar manner as she would live in the house of her husband.

8. Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that under Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance is the absolute right of wife and cannot be defeated on plea that husband does not have any work or means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under legal obligation to support his wife.

9. That being so, this Court is of the opinion that the maintenance granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not in the higher side and does not suffer from any illegality and irregularity or perversity.