Judgment D.N. Upadhyay, J. This Cr. Misc. Application has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.7.2001 passed by Sri B.B.M. Murty, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Cr. Revision No. 147 of 2000/63 of 2001 and also order dated 29.9.2000 passed by Sri Deonandan Pd. Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamtara in Misc. Case No. 2 of 1994 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate has granted maintenance of Rs.500/- to Ram Kumari Devi (Opposite Party No.2) and Rs.250/- to her children (opposite party no.3 and 4) till their attaining majority from the date of filing of petition under section 125 Cr. P.C. 2. It appears that opposite party no.2 on her behalf and also on behalf of her two minor children filed a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. against the petitioner/opposite party for grant of maintenance. Learned Magistrate after holding enquiry was pleased to allow maintenance of Rs.500/- to Opposite Party No.2 and Rs.250/- to her minor children. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision No. 147 of 2000 before the learned Sessions Judge which was transferred to the court of 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka and it was dismissed by order dated 24.7.2000 and order dated 29.9.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate in Misc. Case No. 2/94 was confirmed. 3. The facts appearing from the record is that opposite party no.2 was married with petitioner in the year 1969 and out of said wedlock she delivered two male child, in due course, who are opposite party no.3- Binod Kumar Singh & 4-Pramod Kumar Singh. It is contended that the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 to 4 are the permanent resident of village Kutubpur within the District Patna and they are having ancestral property at their native village. The petitioner was employed in Chitranjan locomotive hence he had been living at Chitranjan within the District of Burdwan (West Bengal). The opposite party no.2 learnt that her husband-Ram Pravesh Singh (petitioner) has arranged his second marriage with another lady known as Manju Devi and she verified the information to which she found correct. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 with her sons came to the residence of petitioner at Chitranjan where she was providing some accommodation in that very house but ultimately she was neglected and some dispute arose between the petitioner and the opposite parties. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 with her sons came to the residence of petitioner at Chitranjan where she was providing some accommodation in that very house but ultimately she was neglected and some dispute arose between the petitioner and the opposite parties. Thereafter the petitioner left the house and started living in a rented house with his second wife with whom he is also having two children. Since the opposite party no.2 felt herself neglected and found herself unable to maintain, she lodged a case under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jamtara which was registered as Misc. Case No. 02/1994. The petitioner appeared in that very case and filed his show-cause. The contention of the petitioner in the court-below was that he had arranged his second marriage with the consent of opposite party no.2 because she was not willing to live with him at Chitranjan. The petitioner had made arrangement for the livelihood of the O.P.No.2 and her children. It is specifically averted that six bighas of land with a residential house which the petitioner got in his share in the property was given to the opposite party no.2. Besides the above, he had also purchased 1.75 bighas of land in the name of opposite party no.2 and aforesaid lands were being cultivated under the control of opposite party no.2 and her sons. Not only that the opposite party no.2 is the only daughter of her parents and she also got property inherited by her at village Mohammadpur i.e. the place of residence of her parents. 4. The opposite party no.2 as well as the petitioner have adduced evidence in support of their contention and also proved certain documents. The gist of the evidence on record is that the petitioner had made suitable arrangement for the maintenance of O.P.No.2 and her sons and she had been receiving agricultural produce from those lands. She had also occupied the double storeyed building in which the petitioner with his second wife was residing. The petitioner and his second wife were ousted from the house. The petitioner further made out a case that his son opposite party no.3- Binod Kumar Singh was born in the year 1974 and on the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. he was major and he was not entitled for maintenance. 5. The petitioner and his second wife were ousted from the house. The petitioner further made out a case that his son opposite party no.3- Binod Kumar Singh was born in the year 1974 and on the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. he was major and he was not entitled for maintenance. 5. On the other hand, O.P.No.2 adduced evidence to prove that she has been neglected by the petitioner and she was not provided proper maintenance for herself and her sons. She had not given consent for the second marriage rather she was deserted and neglected by the petitioner after the second marriage. The petitioner was previously providing money to the O.P.No.2 for her maintenance but after the second marriage he had stopped the same. The opposite party no.2 is not having her independent income to maintain herself and her children. 6. The learned Magistrate after holding enquiry has held that the petitioner has arranged his second marriage with another lady and that was the cogent ground for the O.P.No.2 to live separately from the petitioner. It was further held that the contention made by the O.P.No.2 that she is unable to maintain herself and her children was sufficient to direct the petitioner to pay maintenance. 7. The petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 29.9.2000 passed by Shri Deonandan Prasad Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamtara preferred Criminal Revision No. 147 of 2000 which stood dismissed and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate was upheld. 8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders, the petitioner has filed present Cr. M.P. under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. for quashing of those orders. 9. Learned Counsel has referred the evidence adduced from both sides and the documents marked exhibits. It was contended that about six bighas of land at village Kutubpur and Boraipur which had fallen in the share of the petitioner under the family settlement have been left out for the livelihood of the opposite parties. Besides the above 1.12 ½ acres of land in village Mohammadpur was purchased by the petitioner in the name of opposite party no.2 which is also being possessed by her. In addition to above, opposite party no.2 has inherited about 4 bighas of land under Khata no. Besides the above 1.12 ½ acres of land in village Mohammadpur was purchased by the petitioner in the name of opposite party no.2 which is also being possessed by her. In addition to above, opposite party no.2 has inherited about 4 bighas of land under Khata no. 13 and 23 at village Mohammadpur from her mother and that land is also under her cultivation. The petitioner had made adequate arrangement for the maintenance of opposite parties and they were having sufficient means to maintain themselves. The opposite party no.2 has filed application for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs.300/- for herself and Rs.100/- each for her two sons but the learned Magistrate on his own has passed an order granting maintenance to the tune of Rs.500/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 and Rs.250/- in favour of O.P.No.3 & 4. The learned courts-below have lost sight to the provision contained under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. and have failed to appreciate that the adequate arrangements were made for the maintenance of opposite parties by the petitioner and they were capable enough to maintain themselves. 10. I have gone through the impugned orders as well as the case record. I do agree with the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in the judgment reported in (1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases 326 ‘Rajathi Vrs. C. Ganesan’ that exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code are not a substitute for a second revision as under sub-section (3) of Section 397 of the Code. The very fact that the inherent powers conferred on the High Court are vast would mean that these are circumscribed and could be invoked only on certain set principles. It is not necessary to examine the whole evidence threadbare to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code rather in a case under Section 125 of the Code, the Trial Court is to take a prima facie view of the matter and it is not necessary for the Court to go into the matrimonial disputes between the parties in detail. 11. Here in the instant case the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge have given concurrent findings that the opposite parties were neglected after the petitioner arranged his second marriage and he had stopped paying maintenance to them. 11. Here in the instant case the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge have given concurrent findings that the opposite parties were neglected after the petitioner arranged his second marriage and he had stopped paying maintenance to them. The petitioner was accordingly directed to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs.500/- per month to the O.P.No.2 and Rs.250/- to her sons. 12. It is evident from the record that the petitioner has arranged his second marriage and he is having two children from the second wife. He had been living with his second wife and children at Chitranjan. He has also accepted that in his service record and the medical book names of opposite parties were not given rather name of second wife and her children were given. It is also admitted that previously whenever he had been to his native village he used to pay money to the opposite parties but after matrimonial dispute arose between the parties he had stopped paying money to them. The petitioner has pleaded before the court-below that adequate arrangement for the maintenance of opposite parties has been made by him and they are having enough income to maintain themselves. This fact has been proved by the petitioner by proving documents pertaining to the properties, which were given to the opposite parties, as well as oral evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 3. The petitioner has tried to bring on record that agricultural produce given against the land under her possession is sufficient for their maintenance. 13. In view of the pleadings and evidence of the petitioner, it is desirable to consider whether the opposite parties are unable to maintain themselves and they have succeeded to prove this fact ? Their Lordships in the judgment “Rajathi Vrs. C. Ganesan” (supra) have held: ‘The words “unable to maintain herself” would mean the means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after the desertion to survive somehow. Section 125 is enacted on the premise that it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, children and parents. It will, therefore, be for him to show that he has no sufficient means to discharge his obligation and that he did not neglect or refuse to maintain them or any one of them. Section 125 is enacted on the premise that it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, children and parents. It will, therefore, be for him to show that he has no sufficient means to discharge his obligation and that he did not neglect or refuse to maintain them or any one of them. It was further held that the statement of the wife that she was unable to maintain herself would be enough and it would be for the husband to prove otherwise.’ In another judgment reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 316 ‘Chaturbhuj Vrs. Sita Bai’ it was held: “Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- S. 125- Maintenance- Claim of, by wife – Requisite for maintaining proceedings- Condition to establish that wife unable to maintain herself- Basis of and test required, considered- Words and Phrases- “Unable to maintain herself”- Meaning of, clarified. In an illustrative case where the wife was surviving by begging, it would not amount to her ability to maintain herself. It can also be not said that the wife has been capable of earning but she was not making an effort to earn. Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. In Bhagwan Dutt V. Kamla Devi it was observed the wife should be in a position to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression “unable to maintain herself” does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C.” 14. The specific case which the petitioner has made out on record is that he has made adequate arrangements for the maintenance of opposite parties by providing them suitable agricultural land and residential accommodation. But the evidence on record is not sufficient to indicate as to what extent of income the petitioners were receiving from the aforesaid lands and whether it was sufficient to maintain themselves. But the evidence on record is not sufficient to indicate as to what extent of income the petitioners were receiving from the aforesaid lands and whether it was sufficient to maintain themselves. I find that this question has not been answered by the petitioner rather he himself has admitted that he had debarred the opposite parties from getting any benefit from his employment and he had stopped paying money to them. It is needless to say that the opposite parties were living at the native village to look after the ancestral property of the petitioner and they were also receiving money from the petitioner to fulfill their other necessities. The observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment referred to above give a guideline that the means and protection available to the husband under which the wife and children were living, shall be the criteria to decide the maintenance and not the income which the deserted wife and children were earning from the sources available to them for their survival. In view of the judgments cited above, evidence on record, pleadings of the parties and the discussions made above, I am also of the opinion that the opposite parties were not having sufficient means to maintain themselves and thus it is observed that they were unable to maintain themselves. 15. The findings of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of “Smt. Raj Rani Vrs. Niranjan Dass Manocha” is based on different facts and circumstances which is not available in the present case. In that very case the wife has admitted that she is having some means and this was the grounds for not allowing maintenance to her. The aforesaid judgment is not helpful to petitioner in the case at hand. 15. I do agree with the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the evidence on record that the opposite party no.3 was already married at that point of time and according to the evidence of petitioner he was born in the year 1974 and therefore, he was major on the date of filing of application and hence he was not entitled for any maintenance. Furthermore, the Magistrate has suo motu ordered Rs.500/- per month as maintenance to the O.P.No.2 and Rs.250/- towards maintenance allowance to O.P. No. 3 & 4 though the O.P.No.2 has prayed for grant of maintenance of Rs.300/- for herself and Rs.100/- each for O.P. No. 3 & 4. 16. Considering all these aspects, I feel and hold that the wife- O.P.No.2 shall get Rs.500/- per month as maintenance towards herself till she alive and O.P.No.4 shall be entitled for his maintenance @ Rs.125 per month from the date of filing of the application till the date of his attaining majority. The impugned orders are modified to the above extent and the O.P.No.2 & 4 are entitled to receive arrears of maintenance too. 17. Accordingly, this Cr. M.P. stands dismissed.