Judgment Satya Prakash Pathak, J.-The present revision petition filed under Sections 397 & 401, CrPC assails the order dated 17.02.2005 passed in Criminal Case No.38/98 by Family Court, Jodhpur, allowing the application filed by respondent Shashi Dangi under Section 125, CrPC and granting monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 600/-for herself , Rs. 600/-to son Pushpendra, Rs. 500/-to son Bhupendra and Rs. 500/-to daughter Pooja. The maintenance to children has been allowed till their becoming major. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. It is not in dispute that petitioner Rajendra Dangi and Respondent No.1 Smt. Shashi entered into wedlock and out of that respondents Puspendra, Bhupendra and Pooja were born. However, even after about 14 years of the marriage they could not remain unite and lived separately since year 1995. There are allegations and counter allegations from both sides. The wife alleges that there was demand of dowry and harassment and even an attempt to murder her whereas the husband says that the wife left the matrimonial home with children at her own accord and despite notice did not return. 4. Before the Family Court, the respondent wife in support of her application for grant of maintenance examined herself as PW.1, PW. 2 Prakash Dangi and PW. 3 Ramratan while husband examined himself as NAW1, Namita Dangi NAW2 and Shreekishan Dangi NAW. 3. 5. The bone of contention behind separation between the spouses as transpires from the evidence is that the husband did not like her wife visiting Sushil, who was her brother-in-law with whom the illicit relations of wife were alleged. Be that as it may, the husband contested the application for grant of maintenance emphatically and submitted that he is only a conductor on bus earning Rs. 50-60 per day and denied the claim of wife whereas wife claimed that her husband was doing business of band party and is having shop at Javari Bazar, Jaipur in the name of Hindu Chaman Band and earning Rs. 6,000/-per month. The claim of wife falsified from the documents produced on record which show the registration and rent deed in the name of husband’s mother. The wife is said to be doing work in some private school earning Rs.2,000/-and it is claimed that she did not file the application for maintenance for long since she was having her own income. 6. The claim of wife falsified from the documents produced on record which show the registration and rent deed in the name of husband’s mother. The wife is said to be doing work in some private school earning Rs.2,000/-and it is claimed that she did not file the application for maintenance for long since she was having her own income. 6. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, in my view the Family Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence and has erred in allowing the maintenance to the respondent at much higher rate without keeping in mind the meager source of income of husband. It is true that value of money has decreased and the husband might be having some other source of income also but in the overall circumstances, in my opinion it would be in the interest of justice that the respondent wife is allowed monthly maintenance at the rate Rs.500/-and children @ Rs.400/-, in all Rs.1700/-per month making it clear that the children would be entitled to the maintenance allowance only until their attaining majority. 7. The order impugned passed by the Family Court is modified to that extent allowing the petition partly.