PARIHAR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. before the Trial Court on 20. 11. 1997. While allowing maintenance to minor son Rs. 350/- per month, the Trial Court rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 29. 7. 2000 mainly on the ground that the petitioner wife is not living with the respondent husband without any sufficient reasons. Revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the Trial Court was also dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 5. 12. 2000. Hence the present petition challenging both the orders passed by the courts below denying maintenance to the petitioner wife under Section 125 Cr. P. C.
(2.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also both the orders passed by the courts below. It has been alleged by the petitioner that because of the ill-treatment by the respondent husband and further she been turned out of the marital house by the husband, she had no option but to live with her father. It has also been alleged that even the custody of her minor son could be taken from the respondent husband with the assistance of the police. Both the courts below have gathered the opinion that the petitioner wife has failed to prove the allegations, made against the husband. The statement of father of the petitioner wife has also been emphasized to the extent that if the husband is prepared to make a deposit of Rs. 30,000/- in the name of the wife and the child, he is ready to send his daughter to her marital house. It has also come on record that application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as filed by the respondent husband, was subsequently withdrawn by him. A bare reading of Chapter-IX of the Criminal Procedure Code would show that necessary provisions have been made for maintenance of wives, children and parents under the law. The burden of proof is not so strict under Chapter-IX of the Criminal Procedure Code so as to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The court has only to consider overall circumstances on the basis of evidence brought on record. In the present case, the petitioner wife has been able to prove that there are sufficient reasons for her not to live with her husband. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner wife is entitled for maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The orders dated 29. 7. 2000 and 5. 12. 2000 passed by the courts below are quashed and set aside. The respondent husband is directed to pay a maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month w. e. f. 29. 7. 2000 and further Rs. 1,000/- per month w. e. f. 24. 9. 2001 to the petitioner wife apart from the maintenance already allowed to the minor son, petitioner No. 2. Monthly payment be made on or before 15th of each month and arrears, as ordered above, be paid within three months from today. The petitioners are also held entitled for cost of Rs. 2,000/-, which shall be paid by the respondent husband alongwith the arrears, as ordered above. Record be sent back immediately alongwith a copy of this order. . ;