ORDER D.K. Sinha, J. 1. The Criminal Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 1st May, 2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance in a proceeding under Section 125, Cr PC to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- to his wife Babita Verma and Rs. 500/- to his minor daughter Nayansee Kumari i.e. a total sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month in Maintenance Case No. 53 of 2004 since the date of filing of the application. 2. The brief fact of case, according to the petition, was that the petitioner was married to the opposite-party No. 2 according to Hindu rites and customs on 16.4.2000 and on consummation the opposite-party No. 3 was bom. It was alleged that after sometime, the petitioner brought his wife-opposite-party No. 2 to her parental home and left there uncared for about two years. Yet, he had been visiting there by putting pressure on her parents for fulfillment of his demand. It was alleged that he used to threaten that he would not take back his wife to his home unless articles as demanded be supplied to him and finding no way out the wife-opposite-party No. 2, ultimately, had to take recourse to the District Women Forum and with the assistance of such forum she could be able to go back to her matrimonial home where she lived peacefully only for a month but again her misery started. During her stay there when she became pregnant, her husband again brought her to her parental home where she delivered a female child. In view of persistent atrocities in connection with demand of articles the opposite-party No. 2 again took help of the District Women Forum and only then she could be able to return back to her matrimonial home in the Month of October 2003 but again she was brought to her parental home and left there. 3. It was stated in the application that parents of the wife-opposite-party No. 2 were very poor, unable to maintain the applicant and her daughter. The petitioner neglected both of them and refused to maintain. She further stated that the petitioner was running a betel shop at Mahavir Chowk with the earning of Rs. 5,000/- per month, besides, maintaining two tempos in running condition from which his earning was Rs. 10,000/- to 12,000/- per month. The petitioner neglected both of them and refused to maintain. She further stated that the petitioner was running a betel shop at Mahavir Chowk with the earning of Rs. 5,000/- per month, besides, maintaining two tempos in running condition from which his earning was Rs. 10,000/- to 12,000/- per month. He was also having some agricultural lands. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner was neither having betel shop nor was the owner of Auto Rickshaw, rather he was a cleaner in a Auto Rickshaw and from his service therein, he used to earn Rs. 25/- per day and in such a meagre amount he was not even able to maintain himself, what to say about his wife and daughter. As a matter of fact, the opposite-party No. 2 never settled at her matrimonial home because of her high ambition and cruel behaviour with her in-laws. Since no demand of dowry was made at the time of marriage, therefore, subsequent demand of any other articles by the petitioner did not arise. The petitioner always expressed readiness and willingness to keep his wife and daughter with him but she flatly refused by casting various allegations against him. 5. Finally, the learned Counsel submitted that the impugned order awarding total maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1.500/- to the opposite-parties No. 2 and 3 is based upon erroneous calculation which has been fastened upon the petitioner without any basis, ignoring the capability of the petitioner to pay such huge amount in the back drop that he used to earn Rs. 25/- per day as cleaner. 6. Mr. Mohit Prakash, the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite-parties No. 2 and 3 opposed the contention and submitted that the petitioner is fully solvent to maintain his wife and daughter. In the causes shown by the petitioner in Maintenance Case No. 53 of 2004 the petitioner had clearly stated in paragraph 8 that is betel shop, which was situated at Mahabir Chowk, was closed and so far as mini tempo was concerned, the same was in the name of financier. He never stated that he was cleaner in the said tempo. 7. He never stated that he was cleaner in the said tempo. 7. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi rightly held on the basis of the materials that the petitioner was having ten seater tempos with his daily earning about Rs. 300/- to 400/- and he used to ply the tempos along with his father, admittedly it were under hire- purchase scheme and he had to pay instalments. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, according to the learned Counsel, assessed the earning of the petitioner on the average basis to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- to 6,000/- per month and upon such calculation, a sum of Rs. 1,500/- was rightly fixed as maintenance amount to the opposite-parties No. 2 and 3 to be borne by the petitioner. In my view the amount so fixed is meagre and the petitioner can bear it. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced on behalf of the parties I find that the petitioner had indirectly admitted that he was in possession of tempos on hire-purchase basis and from his earnings he used to pay instalment to the financier. The monthly earning from the tempos has rightly been assessed by the principal Judge at Rs. 5,000/- to 6,000 and even if it is assumed that the petitioner used to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the financier as instalment, in my view he is capable to pay Rs. 1,000/- to his wife and Rs. 500/- to his daughter as maintenance for her bringing up. The learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to show reasonable ground and I do not find any merit in this petition, accordingly it is dismissed. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi is directed to immediately initiate follow up action is accordance with law.