Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

s.125 - Claim for maintenance by wife - Wife not having sufficient means to maintain herself and husband having sufficient means - Order of maintenance by Courts below after analyzing evidence - Interference with - Held: Conclusion of courts below that wife was unable to maintain herself was essentially factual and not perverse-Thus, interference not called for - Constitution of India - Article 136.

s.125 - Maintenance proceedings - Object of - Held: s.125 is a measure of social justice, especially enacted to protect women, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves, and falls within constitutional sweep of Article 12(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 15(3) and 39 - Social justice.

Words and phrases: "unable to maintain herself' - Meaning of - In the context of s.125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The respondent-wife filed an application under s.125 Cr.P.C. claiming Rs.10,000/- as maintenance from the appellant-husband. In the application, it was claimed that she was unemployed and unable to maintain herself.

The stand of the appellant was that the wife was living in the house constructed by him; that she had let out the house on rent and since 1979 was residing with one of their sons; that the wife had sold the agricultural land and sale proceeds were still with her; and that she could maintain herself from the money received from the sale of agricultural land and rent.

Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court directed husband to pay Rs.1500 per month opining that the wife did not have sufficient means to maintain herself. The revisional Court analysed the evidence and dismissed the revision petition holding that the appellant's monthly income was more than Rs.10,000/- and the amount received as rent by the respondent-wife was not sufficient to maintain herself.

Appellant filed an application under s.482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court The High Court dismissed the application holding that the conclusions by the trial Court and the Revisional Court were arrived at on appreciation of evidence and therefore there was no scope for any interference. Hence the present appeal.