1. The applicant has preferred this revision petition under section 397 of the CrPC, feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.1.2006 passed by II ASJ, Ratlam, in Criminal Revision No. 159/03, whereby set aside the order of rejection of claim for the grant of maintenance passed by JMFC in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 44/03 dated 6.8.2003. The Revisional Court allowed the petition and granted maintenance amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month in favour of the non-applicant, wife.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant Smt. Meena Khemani is the legally wedded wife of the present applicant Shri Kailash Khemani. Their marriage took place before 21 years and during their wedlock the non-applicant gave birth to two children namely Hina and Monica. One daughter is living with the applicant/husband and another daughter is living with the non-applicant, wife. It is alleged that the applicant/husband started treating the wife with cruelty and also beat her many times, therefore, she is living separately with her parents at Ratlam. The husband is not paying any maintenance amount to her and therefore on the basis of these allegations the non-applicant/wife with her minor daughter Hina had filed a petition under section 125 of the CrPC, for the grant of maintenance amount. The learned trial Court after consideration of the entire evidence on record, partly allowed the petition to the extent of minor daughter and awarded Rs. 1,000/- per month in favour of the minor daughter but rejected the claim of the non-applicant/wife. Feeling aggrieved by which the non-applicant/wife had preferred Criminal Revision No. 159/03 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam by order dated 24.2.2004, the Revisional Court dismissed the revision and upheld the impugned order passed by the trial Court then the non-applicant/ wife has preferred a petition under section 482 of the CrPC, before this Court and this Court by order dated 1.12.2005 remanded the revision petition for fresh hearing on merits then the present Presiding Officer of the Revisional Court after hearing both the parties by impugned order dated 30.1.2006 allowed the revision petition and granted maintenance amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month in favour of the non-applicant/wife also. Hence, feeling aggrieved by which the present applicant/husband has preferred this revision.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Revisional Court wrongly held that the non-applicant/wife is entitled to get maintenance amount from her husband. It is proved by cogent evidence that the wife is living separately without any just and sufficient reason. The so called cruelty is also not proved and if it is proved that the wife is living separately without any sufficient reason then she is not entitled to get any maintenance amount from her husband under the provisions of section 125 of the CrPC, and the learned Revisional Court has ignored the aforesaid facts and wrongly ordered for the grant of maintenance in favour of the wife, therefore, prayed for setting aside of the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court.

5. In reply the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, wife supported the impugned order passed by the lower Court and submitted that the wife/non-applicant has proved the reason for living separately which is cruel treatment of the husband and the Revisional Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the wife is also entitled to get the maintenance amount and rightly granted maintenance amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month in favour of the wife and no grounds are available for any interference in the impugned order. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the revision.

6. The only point for consideration before this Court is as to whether the non-applicant wife is living separately on the ground of cruel treatment by the husband and therefore she is entitled to g