JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties at admission stage. 2. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.7.2012 passed by learned Family Court, Kota (hereinafter referred to as the Court below) in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1036/2009, whereby the application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the petitioner-husband was directed to make payment of maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent-wife from the date of filing of the application i.e. 16.12.2009 and also ordered to pay the amount due till the date of order within six months. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner married with the respondent/wife in the year 2006. The respondent-wife preferred an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Court below inter alia averring that after some time of marriage, the petitioner/husband started giving maltreatment to the respondent/wife. He used to come drinking and abused her. The petitioner forced the respondent/wife to drink liquor. The respondent/wife has been deserted for more than two years. She does not know any work, therefore, she is unable to maintain herself. The petitioner does work of selling vegetables and earns 15,000/- per month and he also does work of electricity repairing and earns Rs. 5,000/-. In addition to that, the petitioner owns 16 Bighas of land, from which he earns Rs. 3 Lacs per year and with these averments the respondent/wife prayed for maintenance allowance for herself @ Rs. 5,000/- per month. 4. In reply to the aforesaid application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the petitioner/husband admitted the marriage with respondent/wife, but refuted other allegations leveled in the application by the respondent/wife. It was contended that the respondent/wife herself does not want to live with him. Whenever he went to bring her, she refused to come with the petitioner and intended to quarrel. The petitioner gave a legal notice through his advocate to the respondent/wife and filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights. In reply to that application, the respondent stated that she does not want to live with the petitioner and she wants divorce. It was also stated that the respondent does the work of labour and vegetable selling and earns Rs. In reply to that application, the respondent stated that she does not want to live with the petitioner and she wants divorce. It was also stated that the respondent does the work of labour and vegetable selling and earns Rs. 300/- per day and the petitioner is living separately from his parents and doing labour, hence, he is unable to maintain her wife. 5. After considering rival submissions of the parties and the evidence adduced, learned Court below allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and ordered for payment of maintenance allowance in terms stated herein-above. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/husband has preferred present revision petition, while reiterating the same contentions, which were raised before the Court below and further contending that the Court below has committed a serious illegality in awarding maintenance from the date of filing of application. As per law, maintenance should be payable from the date of order or, if so ordered, from the date of application for maintenance, but the Court has to assign reasons and in absence thereof, the impugned order would be bad in the eye of law and liable to be quashed and set aside. He has also contended that the findings arrived at by the Court below is totally against the provisions of law. Learned Court below has totally ignored legal aspect of the matter and mechanically recorded the erroneous findings. The petitioner is not competent to earn his livelihood. The respondent is having several sources of income and fully competent to maintain herself. Respondent/wife herself deserted the petitioner, therefore, impugned order passed by the Court below is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order passed by learned Court below and submitted that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order and granted maintenance from the date of filing of the application. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the Court below, I am of the view that the provision is enacted for social justice and specially to protect women and children and falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India, reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. The provision gives effect to natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife. The provision gives effect to natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish the person for his past neglect but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can do so to support those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. 9. In fixing quantum of maintenance, standard of living consistent with the status of the family must be taken into consideration. Neither income nor poverty is an answer to a petition under Sec on 125 Cr.P.C. It ensures socioeconomic rights of a woman and protects h t from vagrancy. The husband-petitioner can not say that he is unable to maintain his wife. In case wife and children were to live together, even then the petitioner-husband would have to maintain the wife and children, therefore, contention of petitioner-husband that he is unable to earn sufficient amount is no defence. 10. In catena of decisions, Hon'ble Supreme Court has already held that there is no necessity for a Family Court to give reasons while describing that the maintenance should be paid from the date of filing of the application. Moreover, the Court has to be sensitive to economic condition of the wife since she has been forced to live separately from the husband. So, in my considered view, even if learned Family Court has decided that the maintenance should be paid from the date of filing of the application, there is neither any illegality nor perversity in the order impugned. 11. I am strengthened in my view by me observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in this respect in Shail Kumar Devi & Anr. v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B. Pathak, 2008 Cr.L.R. (SC) 686 ; wherein their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the point of right of wife to claim maintenance and laid down in the following terms: "...maintenance is a right which accrues to a wife against her husband the minute the former gets married to the latter. It is not only a moral obligation but is also a legal duty cast upon the husband to maintain his wife. It is not only a moral obligation but is also a legal duty cast upon the husband to maintain his wife. Hence, whenever a wife does not stay with her husband and claims maintenance, the only question which the Court is called upon to consider is whether she was justified t live separately from her husband and still claim maintenance from him. If the reply is in the affirmative, she is entitled to claim maintenance. It is, therefore, open to the Magistrate to award maintenance from the date of application and there is nothing which requires recording o 'special reasons though he must record reasons as envisaged by sub-section (6) of Section 354 of the Code in support of the order passed by him. We, therefore, hold that while deciding an application under Section 125 of the Code, a Magistrate is required to record reasons for granting or refusing to grant maintenance to rives, children or parents. Such maintenance can be awarded from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance, as the case may be. For awarding maintenance from the date of the application, express order is necessary. No special reasons, however, are required to be recorded by the Court. In our judgment, no such requirement can be read in subsection (1) of Section 125 of the Code in absence of express provision to that effect." 12. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of position of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the respondent/wife has been living separately from the petitioner/husband. In my considered view and in the conclusion, I am inclined to observe that the petitioner being husband has to maintain and must maintain his wife, that being pious obligation to discharge as per Hindu Shastra. In view of above discussion, I find no illegality or error in the impugned order passed by the Court below, warranting any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 13. Consequently, the revision petition, having no merit, is, hereby, dismissed at admission stage Stay Application No. 2384/2012 also stands dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******