DEEPAK MISRA, J. ( 1 ) INVOKING revisional jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners, the wife and three minor children call in question the defensibility of the order dated 4-4-94 passed in Criminal Revision No. 121/93 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, wherein the amount of maintenance granted by the learned Judicial Megistrate, First Class, Khairagarh in Misc. Criminal Case No. 28/87 was reduced. ( 2 ) THE factual situation as undraped is as follows :-THE petitioners herein filed an application under Sections 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the 'code') forming the subject-matter of Misc. Criminal Case No. 28/87 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khairagarh for grant of maintenance on the ground that the non-applicant was not keeping them with him and was also not providing maintenance to them. Absence of livelihood and incapability to maintain themselves was also highlighted by the petitioners. ( 3 ) THE respondent-husband resisted the claim putforth by the petitioners traversing, inter alia, that the wife had chosen to reside separately without sufficient reason and, therefore, he was not required under law to maintain her and the children. Sufficiency of income was repudiated and it was pleaded that his monthly income was Rs. 600/- to 700/ -. The learned Magistrate on considering the rival stands initially passed the order on 5-1-93 allowing the application and directed the husband to pay Rs. 500/- for all the petitioners. The aforesaid order was challenged in revision and the revisional court set it aside and remanded the case for fixing separate amount for each of the petitioners. On reconsideration the learned Magistrate granted Rs. 500/- per month to the wife and a sum of Rs. 300/- each to the petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 by his order dated 5-10-93. The said order was assailed by the non-applicant-husband in revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh who upheld the finding entitling the petitioners for grant of maintenance but reduced the amount to Rs. 400/- per month as far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, Rs. 300/- per month to petitioner No. 2 up to her marriage, Rs. 150/- per month to the petitioner No. 3 till he attains the age of majority; and Rs. 150/- per month to petitioner No. 4 up to the date of her marriage. The said order is the cause of grievance of the present revisionists. 300/- per month to petitioner No. 2 up to her marriage, Rs. 150/- per month to the petitioner No. 3 till he attains the age of majority; and Rs. 150/- per month to petitioner No. 4 up to the date of her marriage. The said order is the cause of grievance of the present revisionists. ( 4 ) MR. S. L. Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the pregnability of the aforesaid order has contended that the grant of maintenance by the learned Magistrate was just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and was in consonance with the materials on record and, therefore, the revisional Court should not have interfered in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is further canvassed by him that when the revisional Court has accepted the version of the wife that the joint family income per month is Rs. 16,500/-, there was no justification for reducing the quantum. Mr. Ajit Singh, learned counsel for the non-applicant has strenuously urged that the analysis of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is based on sound ratiocination and, therefore, it cannot be regarded as fallacious. He has also proposed that restricting the grant of maintenance till the period of attaining majority of minor children by the revisional Court is in consonance with the mandate of the law, hence the impugned order does not warrant interference. ( 5 ) ON a perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate I find that he has taken into consideration that the non-applicant-husband is carrying on business with other members of the family. He has believed the evidence adduced by the wife with regard to the income of the family. Nothing was produced before the Magistrate to controvert the same and accordingly he passed the order granting maintenance as has been indicated before. The revisional Court has not set aside the finding with regard to the income of the joint family. He has accepted that the monthly income would be Rs. 16,500/- but had reduced the same on the ground that the family in question is a large and joint family. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has referred to the documents Exhibits A-5, A-6 and A-7 to arrive at the conclusion that the husband was in the joint family business. These findings are also not assailed by the husband. 16,500/- but had reduced the same on the ground that the family in question is a large and joint family. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has referred to the documents Exhibits A-5, A-6 and A-7 to arrive at the conclusion that the husband was in the joint family business. These findings are also not assailed by the husband. ( 6 ) THE question that really falls for consideration is whether the revisional Court was justified in reducing the amount in question. Except indicating that the amount granted by the Magistrate is excessive, no further reason has been ascribed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that the wife has to be given maintenance in accordance with her social status and there has been price-rise. In spite of this observation he has reduced the amount on the ground that it is excessive. The husband has the obligation to maintain the wife and the children as the law requires. For the purpose of fixation of quantum the status of the person as well as the status of the claimant are to be taken into consideration. A neglected wife has to sustain herself. The minor children are to be looked after. A wife has to be treated with dignity as she does not play a subsidiary role in the life of a man. The relationship is beyond the physical and is in the arena of subtler and final mental stream. A neglected wife cannot be expected to live like a church mouse, moreso, when she has three minor children to maintain. In the days of yore a wife was regarded as an epitome of the cementing factor in the domestic life and embodiment of sacrificing synthesis in social fabric. She was regarded as a symbol of virtue, an emblem of Olympian Calmness and an embodiment of Himalayan poise. This being the position of a wife, it is undesirable to conceive that she would live in distress because of the neglect of husband. Not to accept this situation is like playing possum. It is not to be forgotten that a husband has duty nay, obligation to maintain the wife. Perceptibility of the income is not the test. The requirement is potentiality. An able bodied man may be required to engage in physical labour to maintain the wife. Not to accept this situation is like playing possum. It is not to be forgotten that a husband has duty nay, obligation to maintain the wife. Perceptibility of the income is not the test. The requirement is potentiality. An able bodied man may be required to engage in physical labour to maintain the wife. In the case at hand when the husband is in family business and has capability to earn there was no justification on the part of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to reduce the quantum. It is to be borne in mind that it is the father who is obliged to maintain the children and wife as per his status. The fixation of Rs. 500/- for the wife and Rs. 300/- for each of the children by no stretch of imagination can be regarded as excessive. ( 7 ) IN view of any preceding analysis, the order of the learned Sessions Judge to the extent it has reduced the amount of maintenance in respect of the petitioners is set aside, but the restrictions imposed by him by fixing the period till attainment of majority remains unaltered. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY the revision is allowed in part. Revision partly allowed. .