JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner-husband is aggrieved by the order dated 28.07.2009, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, whereby the learned Judge has directed the petitionerhusband to pay a maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs. 500/-per month each for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5, the three children born out of the wedlock. 2. Mr. J.V.S. Deora, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that according to the respondent-wife herself, she has admitted, in her cross-examination, that the house in which she is staying with her three children was built by her father and a portion of the said house is on rent. Thus, she is deriving rental income. The said rental income is sufficient for her to maintain herself and the three children. Moreover, the petitioner-husband has already filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Since he is willing to keep her and the children with him, they are dis-entitled from claiming any maintenance from him. Lastly, although no evidence with regard to the income of the petitioner-husband was submitted by the respondent-wife, still the learned Judge has directed the petitioner to pay a total maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondents. 3. On the other hand, Mr. U.S. Gehlot, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife, has strenuously contended that according to the respondent-wife, the portion of the house which is on rent, the rent amount is merely Rs. 100/- per month. The said amount cannot be held to be sufficient for maintaining lives of four persons. Moreover, the learned Judge has rightly concluded that the respondent-wife was subjected to mental and physical currently. In fact, a criminal case has already been filed by the respondent-wife against the petitioner-husband, which is presently pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Udaipur. Hence, she has sufficient reasons for not wanting to live with the petitioner-husband. Lastly, the respondent-wife is faced with the prospects of having to feed herself and to feed her three children and to look after their education and upbringing. Considering the high rate of inflation, a total maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month is not a bonanza. The petitioner-husband being a young man has the capacity to earn more. Therefore, he cannot escape from his liability to maintain his wife and his three children. 4. Considering the high rate of inflation, a total maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month is not a bonanza. The petitioner-husband being a young man has the capacity to earn more. Therefore, he cannot escape from his liability to maintain his wife and his three children. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 5. A bare perusal of the cross-examination of the respondent-wife clearly reveals that according to her, she is merely receiving Rs. 100/- per month as a rental income. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is a mis-statement of fact made by the respondent-wife that the rental income is merely Rs. 100/- per month, but no evidence, in rebuttal, has been submitted by the petitioner. Hence, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of the respondent-wife. Rs. 100-/ per month is not a huge amount for maintaining herself and her three children. Therefore, the paltry sum of Rs. 100/- per month would not disentitle the respondents from claiming a maintenance for herself and for three children. 6. Merely because the petitioner-husband has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, it would not absolve him of his responsibility to pay maintenance to the wife and the children. Moreover, the respondent-wife has already pleaded and proved that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty for which a criminal case is presently pending before the court at udaipur. Hence, she has given cogent reasons for not wanting to stay with the petitioner-husband. 7. The lack of income, or poverty, or unemployment are not an answer to an application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Even if the petitioner-husband is not earning sufficient amount of money, but considering the fact that he is a young man, he certainly has the ability to earn more. Furthermore, in case the respondent-wife and the three children were staying with him, obviously he would maintain them. Therefore, merely because they stay away from him, that too for cogent reasons, he cannot plead that he is unable to maintain them. 8. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition, being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******