JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - The contour of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, Smt.Menka (respondent No.1-wife) and Suman (respondent No.2), minor daughter of petitioner-husband Baljeet son of Rameshwar, have filed the petition for maintenance against him (petitioner), invoking the provisions of section 125 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that after solemnization of marriage in the year 1998, the parties resided together, cohabited as husband & wife and a female child, namely, Suman (now aged 8 years), was born out of their wedlock. The parents of the wife were stated to have spent more than Rs.4 lacs on her marriage beyond their capacity and gave sufficient dowry articles, but her husband and his family members were not satisfied. It was claimed that soon after the marriage, they started taunting her and demanded more dowry articles and maruti car. Ultimately, she along with minor female child was turned out of her matrimonial home by her husband and his family members. According to the wife, she is unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter, whereas her husband is owner of 7 acres of agricultural land. He is able bodied person and is earning Rs.2 lacs per annum from dairy business. In the background of these allegations, the respondent-wife sought the maintenance, at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month for herself and Rs.3000/- p.m. for her minor girl, besides litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- from the petitioner. 2. Sequelly, the petitioner-husband refuted the claim of respondent-wife and filed the reply, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and her locus standi. The husband claimed that she herself has started quarreling with him and his family members on petty matters and left her matrimonial home without his permission. She was stated to have filed a complaint u/ss 498-A, 323, 406 and 506 IPC to humiliate the petitionerhusband and his family members on false grounds. The husband has also levelled the allegations of 2nd marriage against his wife (which remained unsubstantiated). He has denied his source of income & ownership of land and other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal. 3. The husband has also levelled the allegations of 2nd marriage against his wife (which remained unsubstantiated). He has denied his source of income & ownership of land and other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal. 3. Likewise, the District Judge, Family Court, after taking into consideration the evidence on record, partly accepted the petition and directed the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- per month to respondent-wife and Rs.1500/- p.m. to his minor daughter, by virtue of impugned judgment dated 8.4.2013 4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-husband has preferred the present revision petition to challenge the impugned judgment. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for petitioner-husband, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context. 6. Ex facie the argument of learned counsel that petitionerhusband has no source of income and since his wife had herself left her matrimonial home without his permission, so, she is not entitled to the maintenance, sans merit. 7. As is evident from the record that taking into consideration the income from agricultural land, dairy business, the fact that petitionerhusband is able bodied person and other relevant factors, the District Judge, Family Court has partly accepted the petition, by way of impugned judgment dated 8.4.2013, which, in substance, is as under (paras 10 & 11):- “10. Law is well settled that the object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a 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 moral claim to support. Section 125 of Cr.PC gives effect to the fundamental and natural duty of a main to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The said section provides a swift and cheap remedy against any person who despite sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, minor or major child either legitimate or illegitimate (being a married daughter), his father or mother when they are unable to maintain themselves. The primary object of the section is to prevent starvation and vagrancy. The said section provides a swift and cheap remedy against any person who despite sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, minor or major child either legitimate or illegitimate (being a married daughter), his father or mother when they are unable to maintain themselves. The primary object of the section is to prevent starvation and vagrancy. This section is a measure of social justice and is specifically enacted to protect women and children and false within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. The object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to society in respect of his wife, children and parents so that they are no left beggared and destitute on the scrapheap of society and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their subsistence. The jurisdiction of the court is preventive and not remedial and certainly not punitive. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held in Shail Kumar Devi Vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Krishan B.Pathak [2008(4) Law Herald (SC) 2860] : 2008 (3) RCR (Criminal) 842 that maintenance is a right which accrues to a wife against her husband the minute the former gets married to later. It was further held that it is not only a moral obligation but is also a legal duty cast upon the husband to maintain his wife. Bearing these legal principles in mind, it is to be seen whether the applicant-wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her respondent-husband who has allegedly refused to maintain her despite being possessed of sufficient means. 11. The marriage between the parties is not disputed. It has come in the evidence that the applicant no.1 has got no source of income to maintain herself as well as her minor child and she is residing at her parental home at the moment since the day when she was turned out of the matrimonial home. 11. The marriage between the parties is not disputed. It has come in the evidence that the applicant no.1 has got no source of income to maintain herself as well as her minor child and she is residing at her parental home at the moment since the day when she was turned out of the matrimonial home. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and currently soaring prices of the bare necessities of daily life, such as food, medicines, clothes and other unforeseen incidental expenses vis a vis and earning capacities of the parties, the ends of justice would be served if the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month to his applicant no.1 -wife and Rs.1,500/- per month to his applicant No.2-minor daughter as maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the application. It is ordered accordingly. The application thus stands disposed of finally, without any order as to costs. Memo of costs be prepared and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.” 8. Meaning thereby, the District Judge, Family Court has duly considered the entire material on record in right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. The learned counsel for petitionerhusband did not point out any ground/reasons, muchless cogent, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned judgment in this regard. Such impugned judgment of Family Court, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in the exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. ---------0.B.S.0------------