Judgment : First petitioner is the wife of the respondent while the second petitioner minor Senthil Kumar is the son born to the first petitioner and respondent, of their wedlock. First petitioner on her behalf and on behalf of her minor son. Preferred M.C.No.32 of 1987 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram, under Sec.125, Crl.P.C, claiming a monthly award of maintenance for both of them from the respondent. According to first petitioner, the marriage between her and the respondent was celebrated ten years ago at Easwaran Temple, Arachalur. Second petitioner was born as the result of this marriage. Respondent was in the habit of taking away and selling the jewellery of the first petitioner to engage himself in drinking. After inflicting cruelty, respondent sent away his wife and son out of the marital home. Panchayats convened did not result in anything useful. 2. Respondent has not denied either the marriage or paternity. He has put the blame squarely on his wife alleging that she was living separately without any sufficient cause. He further stated that he had no money to pay any sum as maintenance and as a matter of fact, the first petitioner through the second petitioner has instituted a suit for partition. 3. Learned enquiring Magistrate, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed for his scrutiny, accepted the case of the petitioner and directed the respondent to pay to each one of the petitioners Rs.100 every month from the date of his order. 4. Aggrieved respondent challenged the sustainability of the maintenance award in Crl.R.C.No.10 of 1990 before the Principal District Court, Erode. On a strange process of reasoning, first revisional court has chosen to set aside the maintenance award and hence this revision. 5. Counsel representing the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent have taken me through the findings recorded by the enquiring Magistrate as well as the first revisional court. Enquiring Magistrate has elaborately gone into the question about the liability of the respondent to maintain the petitioners on the basis of the evidence placed before him by both the parties. I am unable to find any infirmity either in the process of reasoning or the ultimate verdict rendered by the enquiring Magistrate. Enquiring Magistrate has elaborately gone into the question about the liability of the respondent to maintain the petitioners on the basis of the evidence placed before him by both the parties. I am unable to find any infirmity either in the process of reasoning or the ultimate verdict rendered by the enquiring Magistrate. However, the first revisional court has chosen to set aside the maintenance award only because the first petitioner, through the second petitioner, had instituted a suit for partition against the respondent and has also prayed therein for interim maintenance. According to the first revisional court, the civil remedy was a more suitable remedy for the petitioners, than seeking to invoke the provisions of Sec.125, Crl.P.C, for an award of maintenance. This line of reasoning is totally opposed to the enunciation of law by this Court, several other High Courts and the Supreme Court. Further, the first revisional court has totally overlooked the object and purpose behind inclusion of Sec.125, Crl.P.C., in criminal law, as a summary remedy. The object underlining the summary procedure is to prevent vagrancy of neglected wifes and children. In the event of an award being made by civil court for maintenance pending the main suit, it will always be open to the criminal court to take note of the same while considering the need or otherwise of separately awarding a monthly maintenance. Merely because a suit is pending in which a prayer for interim maintenance has also been asked for, that cannot erase the right of the petitioners, to be maintained by the respondent. In the event of some permanent settlement or permanent maintenance being the outcome of the civil litigation or otherwise, it will always be open to the respondent to seek for alteration or cancellation of the maintenance award made by the Magistrate by seeking recourse to Sec.127, Crl.P.C. The least that could be said about the order passed by the first revisional court is that it is perverse and has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. 6. The order of the first revisional court cannot be sustained. It shall stand set aside. The order of the enquiring Magistrate is restored. This revision is allowed.