R. P. Shukla, J. - (1.) THIS application under section 482, CrPC has been moved by Chandrabhan Singh with the prayer that the judgments and orders of the courts below be set aside and the application of opposite party, Smt. Kastoori, be dismissed.
(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are that Smt. Kastoori was the wedded wife of the applicant. She had two issues, namely, one son and one daughter out of this wedlock. As her husband continued demanding a watch, a cycle and a radio as dowry from her brother, the differences arose and ultimately the applicant turned her out and threatened her to kill if she returned. THE applicant detained the son with him and left the daughter to the care of opposite party, Smt. Kastoori. The opposite party filed an application under section 125, CrPC before the learned Munsif Magistrate, Rampur, for awarding maintenance. The Magistrate allowed her application on 3(0-1-1981 and awarded Rs. 75/- per month as maintenance allowance. Aggrieved by this order the applicant filed a revision in the court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur. This revision application was dismissed and the order of the Magistrate was confirmed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur, on 8-5-1981. Aggrieved by the above orders, the applicant has moved the present application. The applicant has contended that the opposite-party is not entitled to maintenance as, according to her own statement, she is maintaining herself. He has also contended that the opposite party started living separately without sufficient reasons. It is true that, according to section 125, CrPC, wife, who is unable to maintain herself, is only entitled to maintenance. My attention has been drawn to the statement of Smt. Kastoori recorded before the Magistrate filed as Annexure '1' wherein she has said that "Mehnat mazdoori karke apni guzar basar karti hoon." Counsel for the applicant argued that the above statement means that she is able to maintain herself. Both the courts below have found that she had no source of her own to maintain herself. She is an uneducated and unskilled woman. She has no income. It is not the intention of section 125, CrPC that she will be entitled to maintenance only when she becomes absolute destitute or a beggar in the street with tattered clothes. The above statement of Smt. Kastoori would only mean that some how she is managing to live. Section 125, CrPC gives statutory recognition to the fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents so long as they are unable to maintain themselves. The object of the provisions is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. The applicant has failed to prove that opposite-party, Smt. Kastoori, has sufficient means to maintain herself. At present, she is living with her poor brother who too cannot maintain her. The applicant is possessed of sufficient agricultural land and can very well pay Rs. 75/- per month to Smt. Kastoori as maintenance. In the circumstances, it is clear that Smt. Kastoori is unable to maintain herself and hence entitled to maintenance.
(3.) AS far as the second contention of tide applicant is concerned that she is living separately without sufficient reasons, it would suffice to say that her son is with the applicant that is Cbandrabhan Singh and one can imagine the emotional attachment of an Indian mother to her son and yet she is not joining her husband. It suggests that her apprehension that she. will be killed if she goes to her husband has some truth in it. The findings of facts recorded by the courts below need no disturbance in the light of the above observations. In the result, the application fails and is hereby dismissed. The interim order of stay dated 9-7-1981 passed by this Court is vacated. Application dismissed.;