ORDER

1.This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioners under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.06.2018, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, in Criminal Case No.91/2017, whereby the learned Principal Judge whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C by the petitioner.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the income of the respondent is Rs.100000/- per month. He is also earning Rs.500000/- per month through private medical practice as a doctor. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the in view of the income of the respondent, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application of the applicant wrongly without considering the fact that she is entitled to maintain herself as per the status of her husband. It is also submitted that the petitioner/wife is entitled to get Rs.50000/- per month from the respondent as maintenance. Hence, prays for setting aside the impugned order and award of Rs.50,000/- as maintenance in favour of the petitioner.

3. Per contra, counsel for he respondent has opposed the prayer by submitting that the statements regarding private medical practice has not been proved by any document. As per the rules, the respondent is a Govt. Servant and he cannot indulge in the private medical practice. Hence, on the basis of statement of petitioner, the income of the petitioner cannot be assumed to Rs.500000/- per month. Apart that, the learned family Court has found that petitioner is earning Rs.20000/- per month, therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the respondent. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.

4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5 . From the bare perusal of the impugned order as well as material available on record, it is crystal clear that the learned Family Court has rightly observed that the petitioner is earning Rs.20000/- per month. the income of respondent as Rs.100000/- is admitted and the same has not been challenged by the respondent in cross-examination. But so far as the income of Rs.500000/- per month is concerned, no evidence could be adduced by the petitioner regarding income of Rs.500000/- per month from private medical practice. Be that as it may, only on the basis of oral submissions of petitioner, the income of Rs.500000/- cannot be assumed to be correct.

6. In view of the aforesaid ex-parte submissions, the income of the respondent has rightly been held by leaned family Court, hence, the petitioner shall only be entitled to get the maintenance out of the income of Rs.100000/- per month only.

7. However, counsel for the respondent submits that since the petitioner is able to maintain herself, she could not be awarded any amount of maintenance.

8. Further, in view of the impugned order and records, it is crystal clear that the respondent/husband is living in his life style and maintaining the standards, therefore, as per the settled provisions of law, the wife is certainly entitled to live her life as per the standards of her husband. On this aspect, it is asserted in Badshah Vs. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse [AIR (2014) SCW 256], the purposive interpretation needs to be given to provision of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and it is bounden duty of Courts to advance cause of social justice. It is time honourned principal that the wife is entitled to a financial status equivalent to that of the husband. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to live with her husband. In Bhagwan v. Kamla Devi (AIR 1975 SC 83) it was observed that the wife should be in a position to maintain standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family.

The expression "unable to maintain herself" does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintena