The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden placed on the parties in maintenance cases under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for the wife to prove the husband's sufficient means and her inability to maintain herself, and the husband's obligation to prove the wife's sufficient means of earning and the justifiability of her living separately.

Both these revisions are being decided by this common order as the same issue has been arising in both the revisions. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from Criminal Revision No.113/2015 (Devendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another) reproduced as under.

2. The applicant has filed this revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2014 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal, District-Bhopal in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.321/2012 whereby application filed by respondent no.2 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been allowed and applicant has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs.3000/- per month to his wife/respondent no.2

3. Brief facts of the case, in short, are that respondent no.2 is a legally weded wife of the applicant. After marriage respondent no.2 lived with the applicant but after sometime their relation turned soul. The applicant and his relatives started demanding dowry, thereafter respondent no.2 left her matrimonial home and started residing in her parental house since then she is living alone. The applicant is not taking care of her nor maintaining her, she is not having any means to maintain herself. The applicant is having a sufficient means of earning. The respondent no.2 filed an application before the family Court, Bhopal under section 125 of Cr.P.C.. The Principal Judge of Family Court, after hearing both the parties finally passed an order dated 11.11.2014 which is impugned here and allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance amount as mentioned above.

4. Being aggrieved by that order the applicant filed this revision on the ground that the order of the family Court based on bad assumption, improper and incorrect. Respondent no.2 wife of the applicant is living separately on their own volition without any sufficient and justifiable cause. He, therefore, pray to quash the impugned order and rejected the application filed by respondent no.2 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

5. Respondent no.1/State has nothing to do with this dispute and has submitted that the dispute is between the applicant and respondent no.2, State is unnecessarily impleaded as a party. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has submitted that learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence properly, respondent no.2. is legally wedded wife, she was denied for the maintenance by the applicant. The applicant and his relatives harassed her for not fulfillment of demand of down, there is sufficient cause for living separately, prays for dismissal.

6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of M.Cr.C. No.321/2012. It is undisputed that respondent no.2 is a legally wedded wife of the applicant. Respondent no.2. filed an application before the family Court under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and alleging therein that she got married with the applicant on 05.05.2011. Thereafter she went to her matrimonial home where she lived for a month, after that in-laws started to demand of T.V. and refrigerator. The father of respondent no.2 purchased T.V. and refrigerator and sent to her matrimonial home. In spite of that her in5 laws kept on harassing and beating her, The applicant used to come in night on inebriated condition and beat her and made her watch porn films, ultimately she was expelled, therefore, She left the house of the applicant and went to her parental house. The applicant is working in the Panacea Biotech Company as M.R. and earned Rs.25,000-30,000/- per month. She also mentioned in the complaint that the cause of action arose on 05.12.2011 when the applicant as well as his parents beat the respondent no.2 and she was expelled from home.

7. The applicant filed a reply of the said application before the trial Court. In the reply, he denied all allegations made against him and his relatives and averred that respondent no.2 herself started quarrel and forced to leave her to Bhopal. She used to utter filthy w