Judgment :- (1) Heard Mr. Partha Pratim Day, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mrs. Sujata Das, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the wife/opposite party. Perused the impugned order and other materials on record. (2) This criminal revisional Application is directed against an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Malda in connection with a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure awarding a monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,600/- for the wife and Rs. 1,000/- for the minor child. (3) Mr. Das, learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently urged that in an application under Section 125 of the Code the wife prayed for maintenance of Rs. 1,000/-for herself and Rs. 500/- for her minor daughter. In this connection, he draws the attention of this Court to the Annexure "A" to this criminal revisional application i.e. wifes application under Section 125 of the Code. Accordingly, Mr. Das contended that when it is the prayer of the wife who be the best person about her needs, that a total sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month will be sufficient, the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct payment of an amount which is more than that. Accordingly, he submitted it would have been appropriate for the learned Court below to grant maintenance to the wife as per her claim. (4) On the other hand, Mrs. Sujata Das, learned Advocate appearing for the wife handed over to this Court the Pay Slip of the husband/petitioner for the month of April, 2009 and submitted that at the present moment he is drawing nearly 19,517/- per month and, accordingly to her would be the amount of maintenance that does not depend on the claim of the wife/opposite party. (5) Having heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties and considering the materials on record I find in this case neither the marriage nor the paternity of the child has been disputed. However, the only grievance of the petitioner is this that the Court below has passed an order awarding an amount of maintenance which is higher than that of the claim of the wife. However, the only grievance of the petitioner is this that the Court below has passed an order awarding an amount of maintenance which is higher than that of the claim of the wife. I am of the opinion, the amount of maintenance what would be justified never depends on the claim or the prayer of the wife and it is for the Court to decide the same exercising its sound judicial discretion. The amount of maintenance must neither be penurious nor luxurious and must always be commensurate with the income of the husband to prevent starvation and vagrancy. Thus, when the learned Court come to a definite finding that the husband draws the gross salary of Rs. 12,166/- and after deduction get nearly Rs. 7,863/-, I do not find that the learned Magistrate has committed any wrong in awarding maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,600/- per month for the wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month for the child. (6) The order impugned does not deserve any interference and same stands dismissed.