M. NAGAPPA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition by the husband is directed against the order dated 29-8-1981 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur in Criminal Revision Petition 4 of 1981 partly allowing the said petition. The learned Judge maintained the finding of the Court below that the petitioner has neglected and refused to maintain his wife, but reduced the quantum of maintenance from Rs. 150 per month to Rs. 100/- per month from the date of the petition. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are: The wife of the petitioner filed a petition under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month on the following allegations. That their marriage took place about 9 years ago as per custom prevailing in Hindu Society in Guttargi Village and they lived happily for five years as husband and wife. Thereafter at the instance of his step-mother, the husband began to illtreat the wife and cause her injury and she has also taken treatment in Sindgi Hospital. The husband had once sent the wife to her parents house and at the intervention of elders and well-wishers of the family, the husband was advised to treat his wife properly and she went back to her husband. But in spite of the said, advice, he continued to illtreat his wife and she had to leave his house. The father of the wife is too poor and he is not in a position to maintain himself and as such he cannot maintain his daughter. The husband has also taken a second wife on 13/3/1980, in Kakkalmeli Gumpa, i. e. one Suwamma d/o Hanamant Harijan of Nagavi, and leading a marital life with her. She has also stated that the husband owns two houses, agricultural lands measuring about 40 acres and getting about 100 bags of corn every year which would be approximately Rs. 10,000/- in value. If that is so, she contended that the husband has refused and neglected to maintain her in addition to his taking a second wife and she is not able to maintain herself and prayed for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. ( 3 ) THE husband resisted the application and denied all the allegations made therein. If that is so, she contended that the husband has refused and neglected to maintain her in addition to his taking a second wife and she is not able to maintain herself and prayed for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. ( 3 ) THE husband resisted the application and denied all the allegations made therein. He has stated that he is willing to lead a marital life with the wife and that the wife herself left the house at the instance of her father, stating that she would lead marital life with him only if he resides separately. He has stated that he has not illtreated and sent her voluntarily to her parents house. He has stated that he is not in a position to maintain the petitioner separately. This father is an aged man and he cannot leave him and live separately with the wife. He has denied the allegation that he owns two houses and six lands. He has also stated that the wife has three lands and one sreedhana property and therefore she has no right to seek separate maintenance as she has got independent income of her own. ( 4 ) THE wife examined herself and her father and two other witnesses and got marked Exs. P-1 to P6 and the husband examined himself and two witnesses. The learned Magistrate after assessing the evidence of prosecution came to the conclusion that the wife has proved that she is entitled to maintenance and taking into consideration the status of the parties and also the income, he fixed the monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150, from the date of the petition and passed orders accordingly. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order the husband took up the matter in revision in Criminal Revision Petition 4181 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, who, after hearing both the counsels, confirmed the order of the Magistrate with regard to the right of the wife to claim maintenance but, however, reduced the quantum from Rs. 150 to 100 per month. The husband aggrieved by the said order has challenged its legality and correctness in this petition. 150 to 100 per month. The husband aggrieved by the said order has challenged its legality and correctness in this petition. ( 6 ) THE undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent in this petition are husband and wife, respectively, and after their marriage they lived happily for a period of 5 years and thereafter they have been living separately. ( 7 ) APART from the other contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner, the most important contention raised by him is that the revisional court has not even considered the ground urged by the husband that he and his wife were children at the time of their marriage in which case the marriage was void ab initio in view of the decision reported in A. I. R. 1975 Andhra Pradesh 171 and therefore contended that the Courts have wrongly come to the conclusion that the wife is entitled for maintenance. It may be necessary at this stage to refer to a legal point canvassed by the husband before this Court, before adverting to the evidence in question. A perusal of the statement filed by the husband before the trial Court arid also the evidence adduced by him do not disclose anywhere that he had taken this ground of child marriage between him and his wife and that being ab initio void. The said point was not even raised before the Court and was not considered as point for consideration by the learned Magistrate. If really that was so, nothing prevented the husband to take the said ground at the earliest point of time and adduce evidence, so that the same could have been met by the wife, by filing reply. Having failed to raise the said ground at the earliest point of time the husband it appears has raised this ground before the revisional court and his strong objection is that even though it was raised in the revisional court, the revisional court has not considered this aspect of the matter. As already stated, though this point of law would go to the root of the case, the husband has not taken this ground in his objection statement. In other words, there is no averment to the said effect. As already stated, though this point of law would go to the root of the case, the husband has not taken this ground in his objection statement. In other words, there is no averment to the said effect. If that, is so, it cannot be said that the trial court was in error in not considering this aspect of the matter, as the said ground did not form part of the pleadings in the case. ( 8 ) THE issues and points for consideration are raised by the court on the basis of contentions put forth by either of the parties. Having failed to raise the same at the earliest opportunity the husband has raised the said legal aspect before the revisional court and it is not clear from the order of the revisional Court whether the said point was canvassed for consideration at all. If really the said point was canvassed for consideration before the learned Sessions Judge, he would have adverted to the same and passed some order and considered it during the course of his order. The very fact that he has not considered this aspect is an indication that the husband though raised this question as one of the grounds in his memorandum of petition, has not canvassed it seriously before the revisional court. ( 9 ) THIS matter ought to have been agitated by the husband under the relevant provision of law and got the marriage itself cancelled as being illegal ab initio. The husband is not without any remedy in that behalf. He is always at liberty to agitate and get the marriage cancelled if he thought it necessary under a regularly constituted suit or petition under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law for the time being in force. The provisions under Section 125 are summary in nature, and provides for swift and cheap remedy against a person who deprives his wife or neglects or refuses to maintain her or his minor child, legitimate, or illegitimate, unable to maintain itself. Section 125 prescribes a summary procedure. The findings are not final and the parties are at liberty to agitate their rights in a civil court. The summary procedure does not cover entirely the same ground as the civil liability of the husband or father or son under personal Law to maintain his wife, child or parent. Section 125 prescribes a summary procedure. The findings are not final and the parties are at liberty to agitate their rights in a civil court. The summary procedure does not cover entirely the same ground as the civil liability of the husband or father or son under personal Law to maintain his wife, child or parent. When substantial issues of civil nature are raised, the remedy lies only in civil courts. If that is so, there is no substance in the contention of the husband that the revisional court has not considered the legal issue involved in the case. The husband is not without any remedy and this case being one of summary nature and when the point, now raised, was not raised at the earliest point of time, this court would not entertain the said ground at this belated stage. ( 10 ) WITH regard to the evidence adduced by the parties in the courts below, both oral and documentary, the courts have rightly come to the conclusion that the husband has failed, neglected and refused to maintain his wife and as such entitled for maintenance. The evidence of P. W 1 is corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 2 her father. P. W. 3, Kariappa is an independent witness. He has stated that two years prior to the petition he, along with P. W. 2 the father of the petitioner, took her, the petitioner the house of her husband and left her there and that due to frequent quarrels and constant ill-treatment she was again sent back to her parental house. Similar is the evidence of P. W. 4 who is also an independent witness. He corroborates the evidence of P. W. 2 regarding the convening of the panchayat and in that panchayat the husband refused to take his wife back and then later the husband married a second wife by name Suramma and since then the wife is living with her parents. ( 11 ) AS against this the husband has examined himself as P. W. 1 and examined P. Ws. 2 and 3. As rightly observed by the revisional court, the evidence of P. W. 2 does not carry any weight as he has given evidence as a stranger to all the incidents. ( 11 ) AS against this the husband has examined himself as P. W. 1 and examined P. Ws. 2 and 3. As rightly observed by the revisional court, the evidence of P. W. 2 does not carry any weight as he has given evidence as a stranger to all the incidents. P. W. 1 has only stated that his wife was the sister of P. W. 2 whom P. W. 2 has taken back and he did not know whether she was remarried or sent to some place for earning. If that is so, both the courts have rightly come to the conclusion, after appreciating the evidence on record that the wife has proved that she has been neglected and refused to be maintained by her husband and as such entitled to the maintenance prayed for. There is no illegality in the said finding of fact by both the courts. ( 12 ) REGARDING quantum of maintenance, the wife has produced Records of Rights extracts of the lands owned by her husband to prove his income. Ex. P-5 shows the ownership and possession of the lands by her husband to the extent of 37 acres guntas and the nature of the soil being huh, which is known for growing sugar-cane, cotton and jawar. In addition to this P. W. 2 has also given evidence to the effect that her husband owns lands to the extent of 40 acres, excluding the possession of his father. But, however, the revisional court taking into consideration the drought condition prevailing in that part of the district and taking into consideration the status of the parties and also the fact that the husband is an able bodied person, able to do cooly work getting cooly at the rate of Rs. 2 to Rs. 4 per day, came to the conclusion that the award of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150 per month is exorbitant and Rs. 100 per month is reasonable and adequate. The evidence adduced in the case clearly indicates that the husband owns sufficient extent of agricultural lands on which he could grow sugar-cane and paddy. But the learned counsel for the husband contends that this year severe drought situation is prevailing in the district, in which case he is not in a position to raise any crop therein and the sum of Rs. But the learned counsel for the husband contends that this year severe drought situation is prevailing in the district, in which case he is not in a position to raise any crop therein and the sum of Rs. 100 per month itself should work out very great hardship on him and the interest of justice would be fit if the same is reduced considerably. It is no doubt true that certain parts of the said district are severely hit by drought condition and if that is so the interest of justice would be met if a sum of Rs. 100 per month is reduced and fixed at Rs. 80 per month. ( 13 ) IN the result, this petition Is partly allowed and the award of maintenance fixed by both the Courts are modified and fixed at Rs. 80 per month from the date of the petition. With the above modification in the quantum, this petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed with modification in the quantum of maintenance.