R. B. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Government Advocate. ( 2 ) THE above criminal revision has been filed under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and order dated 19. 4. 2001 passed by the Presiding Officer/judge family Court in Case No. 1370 of 1995, Smt. Anita v. Jagdish, which was preferred under section 125, Cr. P. C. for maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month. Smt. Anita filed this application alleging that after marriage the family members of her husband including father-in-law, mother-in-law as well as elder brother of her husband were demanding money and T. V. and other materials in lieu of dowry. Smt. Anita has also made allegations that she had been beaten and had been ousted on 21st February, 1995 from the house of her husband. Since then she is living with her parents house. Smt. Anita has also alleged that her Jtusband is involved in jewellery-making business as such his monthly income is about Rs. 5,000/- per month, whereas, she has no means of her livelihood. The contentions of Smt. Anita the respondent No. 2 (in the present criminal revision) have been denied through the written reply of her husband. The husband of Smt. Anita (Mr. Jagdish Seth/applicant in the present criminal revision) has conceded that parties of both sides were poor and they were married under poverty as such there was no question of demanding dowry. He has further contended it was difficult for him to live with his wife in the City, therefore, he maintains his livelihood by doing work as daily wager by selling cosmetic items on door to door basis as hawker and earned 30 to 40 rupees per day. It has been indicated on behalf of the applicant that his elder brother is involved in the business of jewellery as well as ready-made garments. The applicant in the present criminal revision has also contended that his wife was not willing to live with him and she had gone to the house of her father on her own Will and despite the efforts made by the Family Court for reconciliation their dispute could not be resolved. A case of demand of dowry filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 (Smt. Anita) is also pending. The applicant has also stated before the Family Court that his wife smt. A case of demand of dowry filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 (Smt. Anita) is also pending. The applicant has also stated before the Family Court that his wife smt. Anita had been repeatedly insisting that he should come and live with the family of her father. On the basis of statements and records available the learned Judge Family Court has awarded for maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to be paid by Sri Jagdish Seth to his wife Anita from the date of presentation of the application i. e. from 20. 11. 1995. ( 3 ) AGAINST the above order the husband Sri Jagdish Seth has filed the above criminal revision. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also been allowed to file written argument. ( 4 ) IT has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the application of Smt. Anita filed under section 125, Cr. P. C. was once dismissed on 14. 5. 1998 and on her application dated 4. 11. 1999 for restoration of the case, was erroneously allowed without affording opportunity of hearing to him, therefore, the impugned order dated 19. 4. 2001 is legally unsustainable. The applicant has also contended that the impugned order dated 19. 4. 2001 has been passed by the Judge Family court during the period when lawyers were on strike. However, the above aspects have not been pleaded before the Family Court as such, more so, it was the satisfaction of the Family Court to recall/restore the case and dispose of the same, on merits and on the basis of pleadings and records and after hearing the parties (as averred in para 13 of the affidavit dated 26. 6. 2001 ). It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that learned Judge Family Court has not considered the evidence on record on the point that the wife was not living with the applicant and she was running the shop whereas the applicant was always willing to keep her with him. In this respect there is no indication anywhere that the respondent Smt. Anita had ever directly refused to live with her husband. On the contrary from the statement dated 24. 3. 2001 it reveals that Smt. Anita was repeatedly inviting and asking her husband to live with her in the family of her father. In this respect there is no indication anywhere that the respondent Smt. Anita had ever directly refused to live with her husband. On the contrary from the statement dated 24. 3. 2001 it reveals that Smt. Anita was repeatedly inviting and asking her husband to live with her in the family of her father. In view of the above there is also no specific finding of learned Judge, Fa. mily Court that the wife has expressly refused to live with her husband as such the benefit of Section 125 (4), cr. P. C. could not be given to the applicant. ( 5 ) IT has been argued now before this Court that the learned Family Court has not given reasons and finding that the applicant has no sufficient means to maintain his wife. It has also been argued now before this Court that the Family Court has not given finding that the applicant has refused to live with his wife. It has also been argued before this Court that Rs. 500/- is disproportionate amount having been derived for giving maintenance to the wife out of income of Rs. 780/- per month of the applicant-husband. On the careful analysis it is clear that the judgment dated 19. 4. 2001 is being misinterpreted by the applicant because the Family Court has relied on the simple statement of applicant that he was earning Rs. 30-40 per day. The amount of rs. 780/- as income finds no place any where as wrongly assumed by the applicant and Rs. 500/is the moderate money for the purpose of giving maintenance to the applicant have no legal force. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant has relied on the case 1973 (2) SCC 836 ; 1986 (2)UPLBEC 1114 para 15 page 26, and 1999 (2) AWC 913 . Para 11 of page 14 AWC 913 (at page 859-860 of All. LJ) : "in nutshell, the petitioner has been removed from her office on the finding that she resorted to corrupt practice in getting various works executed under the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna. The finding regarding corrupt practice should be made on the basis of clear, cogent and reliable evidence because such finding entails serious consequences - both civil and criminal - against persons concerned. The finding regarding corrupt practice should be made on the basis of clear, cogent and reliable evidence because such finding entails serious consequences - both civil and criminal - against persons concerned. The District Magistrate has not recorded by finding on the point and has made a sweeping remark that certain allegations, financial irregularities stand proved against the petitioner and, therefore, she is liable to be removed from office. One cannot escape from the conclusion that it is imperative on the District Magistrate to inform its order by recording reasons to reach a particular conclusion. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 14. 1. 1998 passed by the District Magistrate stands vitiated on account of the absence of reasons which impelled him to conclude that the petitioner has committed financial irregularities, is quite weighty and has to be taken into consideration with all seriousness. Reasons are links between materials on which certain conclusions are based to the actual conclusions. They disclose show of mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They would reveal nexus between the facts considered and the conclusion reached in this connection, a reference was made to the celebrated decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Kapoor, (1973) 2 SCC 836 . The said decision was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Gurdial Singh Fiji v. State of Punjab, (1979) 2 SCC 368 . In another case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education v. K. S. Gandhi, (1991) 2 SCC 716 , the Apex Court in para 21 of the report observed as follows : 21. Thus, it is settled law that the reasons are harbinger between the mind of the maker of this order to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. It also excludes the chances to reach arbitrary, whimsical or capricious decision or conclusion. The reasons assure an in-built support to the conclusion/decision reached. The order whether it affects the right of a citizen or a person irrespective of the fact, whether it is quasi-judicial or administrative, fair play requires recording of germane and relevant precise reasons. The recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned consciously applied its mind to the fact on record. . . . The order whether it affects the right of a citizen or a person irrespective of the fact, whether it is quasi-judicial or administrative, fair play requires recording of germane and relevant precise reasons. The recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned consciously applied its mind to the fact on record. . . . " 1986 (2) UPLBEC 1114 para 15 page 26 reads as follows :"in addition to what have been discussed above, a close scrutiny of the charges and the findings recorded by the State Government would show that the State Government has not recorded any reasons as contemplated by law. Instead it merely recorded its conclusion. Recording of reasons implies that the explanation furnished by the petitioner should have been considered objectively and if the same was not found satisfactory reasons should have been stated. Instead we find that the State Government has merely stated the charge, the explanation and then it has recorded its conclusions without recording reasons. " 1973 (2) SCC 836 reads as below :"reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable. " ( 7 ) THE facts and circumstances of all the above cases are distinguishable and are not supporting the contentions of applicant. Learned Judge Family Court has taken into consideration all the relevant aspects, statements and material available on records and has passed the order. There appears no necessity to give detailed reasons for arriving at the conclusions when the facts are so vivid and clear that by ordinary prudence conclusion may be arrived at correctly. In view of the facts and circumstances that the applicant has been earning Rs. 30-40 per day the learned Judge family Court has correctly indicated for maintenance of Rs. 500/- to be given to the wife as it was not the finding of learned Judge Family Court that the applicant was earning Rs. 780/- per month. ( 8 ) I find no impropriety or illegality in the order dated 19. 4. 2001. Therefore, the criminal revision preferred against this order is hereby dismissed. .