IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1116 of 2006 BALMATI DEVI & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4. 28.8.2008. This Cr. Revision has been filed against the order dated 11.9.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Sasaram, Rohtas in Maintenance Case No. 16 of 2002 thereby the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance has been dismissed. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order in question is wholly illegal and bad in law. Court below has wrongly held that the petitioner has admitted in her evidence about her adulterous conduct with Lakshman Mali. It is further submitted that court below has also wrongly held that the petitioner has her own means of income and therefore she is not entitled to get any maintenance. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submitted that the conduct of the petitioner would go to show that she is leading adulterous life with one Lakshman Mali. The witnesses of the opposite party have fully supported this fact and hence the petitioner is not entitled to get any maintenance. Court below record has been received. I have gone through the evidence adduced on behalf of both the sides, particularly, the evidence of the petitioner P.W.1. On perusal of it, it is quite apparent that court below has wrongly held that the petitioner in her evidence - 2 - has practically admitted about leading adulterous life. I find no such admission by the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner has denied the allegation vide evidence para 10, and has stated that she still wants to live with her husband. So far the second ground is concerned; it is also not valid ground for denial of maintenance. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner has any income. The only material on this point is that she is a labourer. The Court below ought to have considered the fact that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and beneficial for women and children. Liberal approach should be adopted for grant of maintenance. In this case the learned family court has refused to grant maintenance on mere technicalities. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Cr. Revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 11.9.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Sasaram, Rohtas in Maintenance Case No. 16 of 2002 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the court below to decide the matter afresh in the light of observations made above and in accordance with law. kanchan (Ghanshyam Prasad, J.)