JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Solan, in Case No. 33-S/10 of J990 and Case No 29-S/iO of 1990, dated 25 2-1991, whereby the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, in Case No. 45/4 of 1989 has been confirmed. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to Smt> Pushap Lata in November, 1980. After some time, the relations between them became strained as a result of which proceedings for divorce were initiated which are stated to be pending trial 3. Respondents Miss Smwartika and Master Nikunj are the minor children. They are living with their mother Smt. Pushap Lata. They filed an application for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therein, they claimed Rs. 500 per month (Miss Smwartika) and Rs. 400 per month (Master Nikunj). At the time of the filing of the application, they were four years and two years old. They stated in the application that the petitioner neglected to maintain them although he has sufficient means. The petitioner admitted them to be his children but stated that their mother was a government employee and had independent income of Rs. 2,200 per month by way of salary. He also stated that he did not neglect or refuse to maintain them and he was willing to keep both of them with him and maintain them. 4. The parties led evidence before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who, by an order of 18-9-1990, awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250 per month to each of the children from the date of the order. Against this decision, parties filed separate revision petitions before the Sessions Judge, Solan. They have been decided by the impugned judgment. The petitioner has assailed this decision again before this Court. It has been stated in the petition that the minor children are also the children of Smt. Pusbap Lata who has legal obligation to maintain them under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The children have not alleged that Smt. Pushap Lata was neglecting or refusing to maintain them from out of her own income and in the absence of such a plea, the children are not entitled to seek maintenance from the second parent. The children have not alleged that Smt. Pushap Lata was neglecting or refusing to maintain them from out of her own income and in the absence of such a plea, the children are not entitled to seek maintenance from the second parent. The further case of the petitioner is that the claim of Smt. Pushap Lata for maintenance had already been dismissed by the Courts below and then this Court also rejected the same In Civil Revision No. 136 of 1989, dated 30-4-1990. Finally, it was contended that the maintenance allowance already awarded to the children was highly excessive and should be reduced, more particularly, when Smt. Pushap Lata was earning handsomely and was trying to seek allowance simply to harass the petitioner. 5. All these submissions made by Shri Kuldip Singh, Counsel for the petitioner, have been seriously assailed by Shri Sandeep Kaushik, Counsel for the children. According to him, the impugned decision is perfectly legal and justifiable The maintenance allowance is already on the lower side and it is hardly possible to meet the expenses of the children in these days of high prices Further more, two Courts have already taken the same view of the matter and it is not desirable to set-aside the same in this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter has been examined carefully. I do not see any substance in any of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Section 125 provides a cheap and speedy remedy to deserted wives, children and parents to secure maintenance. It seeks to avoid vagrancy of wife and children by compelling a person to maintain them in case they are unable to support themselves. As a matter of fact, this provision intends to serve a social purpose. (See t AIR 1963 SC 1521, Mst Jagir Kaur and another v. Jaswant Singh). 6. It is the father who can be proceeded against under this section and called upon to pay maintenance to the children These proceedings are not contemplated against the mother. The father cannot avoid the liability to pay maintenance on the ground that the mother being possessed of sufficient means and being the natural guardian and in custody of the children should maintain the children out of her own income. This view has also been taken in AIR 1956 Mad 154, H J- Mascreen v Dr. The father cannot avoid the liability to pay maintenance on the ground that the mother being possessed of sufficient means and being the natural guardian and in custody of the children should maintain the children out of her own income. This view has also been taken in AIR 1956 Mad 154, H J- Mascreen v Dr. (Mrs.) R. K Mascreen, 1977 Cr LJ i008, Kanwar Dang v Dr Vasudeo Dang, 1978 Cr LJ NOC 4, Mohd Muneeruddin Khan v. Kakshna Munner and others and 1981 Cr LJ NOC 76, C. M. Mani v. Esther Pachikara and others. 7. The contention that this Court has already rejected the prayer for maintenance of the children in Civil Revision No. 139/89, does not help the petitioner for the reason that it was the prayer of Smt. Pushap Lata for maintenance pendente lite which was the subject-matter of dispute in this case and in order to sustain the plea, she had also stated that she was incurring some expenditure for maintaining the children also. Dismissal of this petition does not debar the children from claiming maintenance from their father independently under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petitioner cannot refuse maintenance on the ground that the children are living with their mother. (See i 1961 (2) Cr LJ 233, Mariyam v. Ouseph). 8. The question of quantum of maintenance allowance has also been examined with reference to the evidence of income of the petitioner. The maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250 for each of the children cannot be considered to be excessive in these days of high cost of living. The petitioner can very well pay it from out of the total salary being earned by him. 9. The result that emerges out of the aforesaid discussion is that there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.