ORDER

Present criminal revision is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of CrPC against the order dated 28.6.2017 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, District Ashoknagar (Madhya Pradesh) in Miscellaneous Case No. 45 of 2016, whereby application filed by the petitioners U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance was rejected in respect to petitioners No. 1 to 3 and for enhancement of maintenance amount in respect to petitioner No. 4.

The facts in brief to decide the revision are that the petitioners filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC against the respondent for providing maintenance. As per the facts narrated in the application, the respondent is the husband of petitioner No. 1 - Kalpana and father of rest of the petitioners. The petitioner No. 1 was subjected to physical and mental harrasement by the respondent. The petitioner No. 1 was thrown out of her matrimonial home on 06/08/2016 by the respondent. She is not able to earn and is totally dependent on her parents for her livelyhood with whom she is living now. The respondent is not providing any maintanance to her. The respondent is a veterinary doctor and also owns agricultural land and capable of maintaining the petitioners.

Respondent opposed the prayer sought in the application by filing his written reply.

The trial Court after going through the evidence and hearing the parties rejected the application vide impugned order dated 28.6.2017 in respect to petitioners No. 1 to 3 and awarded Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance in respect to petitioner No. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned order is perverse and against the evidence and facts available on record. It is further argued that the respondent is working as veterinary doctor and getting a handsome salary. The respondent also owns agricultural land. The trial Court has ignored to consider the fact that a case under Section 498-A of CrPC has been filed against the respondent, which is sufficient to show that the petitioner along with her children is living separately due to sufficient reasons.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and argued that the present petition is baseless and deserves to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record.

It is not disputed between the parties that petitioner No. 1 - Kalpana is the wife of respondent Sanjay and rest of the petitioners are children of petitioner No. 1 and respondent. It is also not disputed that petitioner No. 1 is living separately from her husband-respondent and the respondent is not maintaining her wife - petitioner No. 1 as well as his children - petitioners No. 2 and 3.

The perusal of record shows that petitioner No. 1 in her court statement has stated that she is living with her father because respondent Sanjay threw her out of house after physical assault. In her cross-examination also, she has specifically mentioned that after her marriage, she was continuously harassed by the respondent. Her statement in respect to the physical and mental harassment has remained uncontradicted in her cross-examination. The fact that the petitioner No. 1 has filed a case under Section 498-A of IPC against the respondent is not disputed which corroborates her statement in respect to harrasement by the respondent. Under such circumstances the separate living of the petitioners has sufficient reasons. The finding of the learned trial court is found to be erronious dissmissing the petition on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 came to her parental home with her brother and is not ready to go with the respondent because physical and mental harrasement by husband is a sufficient ground for the wife to refuse to live with husband.

The record reveals that respondent has failed to produce any evidence that petitioner No. 1 is capable of maintaining herself. On the contrary, it emerges from the