JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - This revision Under Sections 397/401 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short the Code) is directed against the judgment and order dated 8-6-1984 passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge Varanasi, allowing the revision filed by Saudagar Ali, the husband, against the present applicant, the wife, and setting aside the order dated 30-1-1984 passed by the Magistrate, who allowed the applicationn of present applicant, and granted her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month and Rs. 200/- to her children, in a proceeding u/s 125 of the Code, initiated by the present applicant, the wife, claiming maintenance for herself and her minor children. 2. The present applicant filed the application u/s 125 claiming maintenance for herself and her minor children, on the ground that after death of her first husband she remarried Saudagar Ali, opposite party No. 2, about one and half years back, who was maintaining her and was in an affluent position being the Proprietor of a tailoring shop and has got so many servants and earns Rs. 200/- per day, but refused to maintain her and treated her with cruelty, and after being drunk threatened her to leave the house with her children otherwise she would be killed. On 22-4-82 she was severely beaten by him, and she got her injuries medically examined. The allegations in the application were denied by the opposite party No. 2. 3. Learned Magistrate allowed the application for maintenance filed by the present applicant and awarded a sum of Rs. 200/- per month for herself and Rs. 200/- per month for her children, as maintenance from the opposite party No. 2, Saudagar Ali, the husband by it's order dated 30-1-84. Against that order a revision was filed by the husband before the Sessions Judge which has been allowed and that order passed in revision has been challenged before this Court by present applicant. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri. Against that order a revision was filed by the husband before the Sessions Judge which has been allowed and that order passed in revision has been challenged before this Court by present applicant. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri. Sachindra Mohan, urged that the learned Sessions Judge erred in not appreciating the scope of revision u/s 397 of the Code as he set aside the order of Magistrate without holding, as to what was impropriety, in the order of learned Magistrate and he has actually considered the oral evidence afresh, but did not refer to the entire evidence on the record, he has just considered the statements of PW 4 Vakil Ahmad, PW 2 Ali Ahmad and PW 1 Bunga and the statement of opposite party No. 2, the husband whereas present applicant has examined PW 1 Bunga, PW 2 Ali Ahmad, PW 3 Samsuddoha, PW 4 Vakil Ahmad and PW 5 Alimun Nisa herself (present applicant). In support of his case opposite party No. 2 the husband examined himself as OPW 1, Mohd. Idrish as OPW 2, Sharda Prasad Shukla as OPW 3, and Iqbal Ahmad as OPW 4 but the statements of all the witnesses were not considered. It was further urged that the learned Judge did not appreciate the nature and scope of the application for maintenance u/s 125, under Chapter 9 of the Code dealing with the order for maintenance of wife, child and the parents and assuming those proceedings to be of a permanent nature, has set aside the order of learned Magistrate whereas those proceedings are just summary in nature to stop vagarancy and to make a provision for a bare maintenance o neglected wife and child etc. The maximum sum to be awarded being Rs. 500/- per month only. It was further urged that the amount of Rs. 400/- per month (Rs. 200/- for wife and Rs. 200/- for children) was not excessive keeping in view the status of the opposite party No. 2 the husband who was a good tailor master having a number of tailors as servants and was earning at least Rs. 200/- per day. Accordingly it was urged that the order passed by learned Sessions Judge deserves to be set aside, and that of the Magistrate may be restored. 5. Sri. 200/- per day. Accordingly it was urged that the order passed by learned Sessions Judge deserves to be set aside, and that of the Magistrate may be restored. 5. Sri. Nanak Sharan, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2, urged that the learned Judge has considered the relevant evidence on the record and has correctly appreciated the nature of the proceedings u/s 125 of the Code and the order of learned Magistrate has correctly been set aside and the application for maintenance has correctly been dismissed. 6. Before considering other arguments it is better to ascertain the object of the proceedings u/s 125 of the Code, the intention of the Legislature and the scope of enquiry by the Magistrate. By now it is well settled that the object of the proceedings u/s 125 is to prevent vagarancy by compelling the husband to support his wife or child or parents unable to maintain themselves. The object is not to punish a husband for his past neglect but just to provide a cheap, speedy and limited relief for the deserted wives and children of all religion. It is the philasthropsit and humanitarian aspect of the society that has been enacted under Chapter 9 of the Code. Sections 125 to 128 are a piece of social legislation brought on the statute, with a view to help deserted wife and child and directing the husband to pay a maximum sum of Rs. Five hundred per month, to enable them to keep their body and soul together. Section 125 is just a sort of reminder to the husband who is in a position to maintain his wife and child, that in case he refused to maintain, the statutory right of the wife and child would be enforced by law. To maintain one's wife and one's child is a social purpose and goal towards social justice. 7. In a welfare State like ours the object of the sacred Constitution is to secure to all its citizens justice, social and economic etc. and equality of status and of opportunity. After enforcement of the Constitution (Fourty Second) Amendment Act, 1976, Part IV-A and Article 51-A of the Constitution dealing with, fundamental duties of every citizen of this country, have been added. and equality of status and of opportunity. After enforcement of the Constitution (Fourty Second) Amendment Act, 1976, Part IV-A and Article 51-A of the Constitution dealing with, fundamental duties of every citizen of this country, have been added. Article 51-A(c) provides that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India (i) to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, 51-A(e) provides to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India; 51-A(f) provides to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture; and Article 51-A(j) provides to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity, so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. 8. It is one of the fundamental duties of every citizen of this country to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, to promote common brotherhood and preserve the rich heritage of our culture and to towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity. It the follows that how can one be expected to strive towards excellence in he fails to maintain his wife and child. Strictly speaking the right of the child and parents for maintenance is a distinct statutory right recognised by Legislature. 9. These proceedings u/s 125 are summary in nature and they are not equal to civil suit for maintenance. The order under this Section is just a temporary and tentative order subject of course to the final deter-mination of the rights of the parties by Civil Court. Further this order is subject to the change of the circumstances pointed out u/s 127. 10. Keeping in view nature of the proceedings learned Magistrate passed an order after considering the entire evidence on record and awarded a sum of Rs. 200/- per month to the wife and Rs. 200/- per month to the children. It has to be seen in the instant case as to whether learned Judge was justified in setting aside that order in revision without considering the propriety in the order. 11. Learned Sessions Judge was exercising jurisdiction u/s 397 of the Code which provides that he may call for and examine the record of the proceedings for the purpose of satisfying himself regarding correctness, legality or propriety of any finding. 11. Learned Sessions Judge was exercising jurisdiction u/s 397 of the Code which provides that he may call for and examine the record of the proceedings for the purpose of satisfying himself regarding correctness, legality or propriety of any finding. Statements of the witnesses have been considered by the learned Magistrate and he has recorded a finding that the husband was earning at least Rs. 3000/- a month, in view of that income he awarded a sum of Rs. 200/- to the wife and Rs. 200/- to her minor children. I am of the view that the amount of maintenance awarded by the Magistrate was in consonance with the status of the husband. In the instant case the husband was a good tailor master earning atleast Rs. 3,000/- per month and the learned Judge did not record any finding that the income of the husband was less than that or that the amount awarded was excessive. Further Legislature has fixed a limit that maximum a sum of Rs. 500/- per month can be awarded. 12. As regards appreciation of the evidence on the record, the Magistrate has made a reference to the statements of PW 1 Bunga, PW 2 Ali Ahmad, PW 3 Samsuddoha, PW 4 Vakil Ahmad and PW 5 Alimun Nisa applicant herself, and the statements of OPW 1 Saudagar Ali, OPW 2 Mohd. Iddrish, OPW 3 Sharda Prasad Shukla and OPW 4 Iqbal Ahmad from the side of opposite party. The learned Sessions Judge observed that the order of the Magistrate suffers from the perversity in as much as the opposite party was not liable to maintain the children who were born to his wife Alimun Nisa from her previous husband. He forgot to consider the fact that at the time when the second marriage of Alimun Nisa was solemnised with present opposite party No. 2 Saudagar Ali, it was a condition that he would maintain the children born to the applicant from her previous husband and he readily agreed and was maintaining them till he refused to maintain them, As the children were minor and they were with their mother, in case mother contacted second marriage and second husband agreed to maintain those children, it becomes obligatory on his part to maintain them till they become major, the learned Judge failed to consider this aspect. 13. 13. It is better to refer that the scope of jurisdiction of the Revisional Court u/s 397 of the Code is limited to the extent of propriety, correctness and illegality of the findings recorded by the trial Court. When the Revisional Court considers the propriety of findings of trial Court based on appraisal of evidence, it must bear in mind the general principles of the appreciation of oral evidence. The Revisional Court has no advantage of observing the manner in which the witnesses gave their testimony. In other words the demeanour of the witnesses could not be observed by the Revisional Court. Further the settled principle is that when the question is about credibility of witnesses, the Revisional Court must be slow in making interference. It should permit the findings recorded by the trial Court to prevail unless of course it appears that a special feature or some important aspect about the evidence of a particular witness was not considered by the trial Court. There was, in the instant case, no sufficient balance of improbability to displace the trial Court's findings as to the truth of the oral evidence. In other words the Revisional Court can interfere on very clear proof of mistake by the learned Magistrate. In the instant case no such mistake was pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge while exercising Revisionai Jurisdiction. Even the statements of all the PWs examined by the applicant and relied upon by the learned Magistrate were not considered by the Revisional Court nor any mistake in the appraisal of evidence or otherwise was pointed out. Learned Sessions Judge appears to have emphasized one fact that after receiving injuries on 22-4-82 the applicant did not lodge any FIR whereas she has lodged the FIR after getting herself medically examined. I am of the view that the learned Sessions Judge without considering the limitations in his jurisdiction as a Revisional Court and without considering the propriety or otherwise of the order passed by the Magistrate, interfered with the order passed by the Magistrate, granting maintenance which was just and proper and based on appraisal of evidence on record. 14. As regards the quantum of maintenance, I am of the view that the maintenance has to be in consistence with the status of the husband and his earning. 14. As regards the quantum of maintenance, I am of the view that the maintenance has to be in consistence with the status of the husband and his earning. In the instant case it has come in evidence and was found as finding of fact by the Magistrate that opposite party No. 2 was earning at least Rs. 3,000/- in a month and the applicant has been awarded just a sum of Rs. 200/-per month for herself and Rs. 200/- per month for her minor children. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that the amount so awarded was in any way excessive. Although I was thinking to remand the case to the learned Sessions Judge to decide the revision afresh, but considering the summary nature of the enquiry and the object of Section 125 to pass an order to prevent vagerancy in the society, and just Rupees Four hundred per month has been awarded as maintenance, it is not proper to remand the case. I have myself looked into the oral evidence and other evidence on record and am satisfied that the order of the learned Magistrate was correct and proper and does not call for any interference. 15. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore, I am of the view that the learned Judge erred in setting aside the order passed by learned Magistrate. In the result present revision succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The order of learned Sessions Judge dated 8-6-84 is set aside and that of the learned Magistrate dated 30-1-84 is restored. Interim stay order dated 11-7-84 is vacated. The record of the case would be sent back immediately.