JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 28.4-1993, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, by which the learned Judge of the Family Court allowed the application under Section 125 G.P.C. filed by Smt. Anusuiya for the grant of maintenance for herself as well as to her minor son Shrawan Kumar and awarded a maintenance of Rs. 350/-per month to Smt. Anusuiya and Rs. 200/- per month to minor son Shrawan Kumar. 2. Applicant Smt. Anusuiya filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the grant of maintenance to herself as well as to her minor son Shrawan Kumar (aged about six years). The case of the applicant, as unfolded in the application, is that on 21-4-77, she was married to petitioner Bharat Kumar and out of this wed-lock, son Shrawan Kumar was born, who is living with her. Bharat Kumar and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given by the applicant's father and they used to make further demand from the applicant's father, which could not be met-out by the applicant's father and, therefore, she was given beating. Lastly, a demand for a Loom moped was made with the threatening that if this demand will nut be fulfilled then she would be turned out from the house. The applicant was cruelly treated by her husband and the other members of his family. She informed her father, on which her father came to her in-law's house where he was ill-treated by Bharat Kumar and in the month of January, 1987, she turned-out from the house by her husband and since then she is living with her parents and on 13-6-87, Bharat Kumar had contacted second marriage with Ms. Kamla. It was, also, stated in the application that the applicant has no source of income and is unable to maintain herself, while the husband has sufficient income. He is in Government service and drawing Rs. 1200/- per month as salary and has, also, other source of income and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 500/- per month may be awarded as maintenance. This application was opposed by the husband, viz., petitioner Bharat Kumar. In the reply it was stated that the applicant is living in adultery and has illicit relations with several persons and her son Shrawan Kumar was not born from his own loins. 500/- per month may be awarded as maintenance. This application was opposed by the husband, viz., petitioner Bharat Kumar. In the reply it was stated that the applicant is living in adultery and has illicit relations with several persons and her son Shrawan Kumar was not born from his own loins. It has also been stated in the reply that the appellant has sufficient source of income and is able to maintain herself as well as to her son. According to him, as Shrawan Kumar is not his child,therefore, the applicant and her son Shrawan Kumar are not entitled for any maintenance from the petitioner- husband. The applicant, her case, examined herself as AW 1 and produce in evidencrieler 77-117' Krishna Vallabh as AW 2, Purshottam AW 3, Ranchor Lal AW 4, Bhanwar Lal AW 5 and Rajendra AW 6. The non-applicant (husband), in support of his case, examined himself as NAW 1 and produce in evidence Copal Singh NAW 2, Madho Lal NAW 4, Mohan Lal NAW 5, apart from NAW 3 Mohan Lal Purohit R/o Mangalwad (district Chittorgarh). The learned Judge of the Family Court, after appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the applicant has no source of income and is unable to maintain herself. The learned Judge of the Family Court, also, came to the conclusion that Shrawan Kumar was born out of this wed-lock and the applicant is not living an adulterous life and the allegations regarding her being a lady of easy virtues have been wrongly levelled by the husband in order to avoid the payment of maintenance. The learned Judge of the Family Court, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs. 350/- per month as maintenance to the wife and Rs. 200/- per month as maintenance to the son. It is against this judgment that the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that sufficient material is available on record showing that the applicant Smt. Anusuiya is living in adultry. The evidence of the witnesses produced by the petitioner, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner,. establish beyond reasonable manner of doubt the adulterous life of Smt. Anusuiya. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that sufficient material is available on record showing that the applicant Smt. Anusuiya is living in adultry. The evidence of the witnesses produced by the petitioner, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner,. establish beyond reasonable manner of doubt the adulterous life of Smt. Anusuiya. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non-petitioner (wife) has sufficient source of income as she is doing the tailoring work and she is able to maintain herself and no case for grant of maintenance is made-out and the learned lower Court committed an error in awarding maintenance to the wife and the son. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that applicant Anusuiya, in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. prayed for award of maintenance to herself as well as to her son to the tune of Rs. 500/- per month whereas the learned Judge of the Family Court awarded the maintenance to the tune of Its. 550/- per month, which amount was not prayed by the applicant. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned-Judge of the Family Court. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 5. From the evidence, Produced by both the parties, it has clearly been proved that applicant Smt. Amusuiya has no source of income. She is not engaged in any of the business, profession or vocation and, therefore the petitioner's husband, who has a moral obligation to maintain his neglected wife and child, should pay them maintenance. The applicant is living with her parents and the petitioner has contacted second marriage with Ms. Kamla, which fact has not been denied by the petitioner. Even otherwise, she cannot be forced to live with her husband when he has levelled such a wild and bald allegations affecting her character and fidelity. The applicant-wife is, therefore, justified in living separately from her husband and claiming maintenance from the petitioner. The learned Judge of the Family Court has appreciated the evidence on all these aspects correctly and judiciously. The order, passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, on these points, does not require any interference. But as the applicant has claimed Rs. The learned Judge of the Family Court has appreciated the evidence on all these aspects correctly and judiciously. The order, passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, on these points, does not require any interference. But as the applicant has claimed Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance, therefore, the learned Judge of the Family Court was not justified in awarding Rs. 550/- as maintenance to the wife and her son and this requires modification. 6. In the result, the revision petition, filed by the petitioner, is partly allowed. The order granting maintenance to the applicant as well as to her son Shrawan Kumar, is maintained. However, the amount of maintenance is reduced from Rs. 550/- per month to Rs. 500/- per month and the wife is entitled for monthly maintenance Rs. 350/- and the son Shrawan Kumar is entitled for the monthly maintenance of Rs. 150/-. This amount of maintenance will be payable from the date of application, i.e., 5-8-1987.Revision partly allowed. *******