ORDER : Subhash Kakade, J. This Criminal Revision under Sections 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant/husband being aggrieved by an order dated 31.5.2011 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in M.J.C. No. 583/2009 granting maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. The applicant is having no source of income and he is residing in the house of his relative at Jabalpur. Hence, the amount of interim maintenance Rs. 1,200/- per month awarded by the Courts below is excessive. 2. After hearing learned Counsel for the applicant and on perusal of the impugned order and memo of petition, it is an admitted fact that the respondent is a legally wedded wife of the applicant. 3. Now, question arises for consideration that whether the applicant is having monthly income of Rs. 15,000/- or not? 4. This, however, is a matter of evidence and, therefore, it is premature at this stage when evidence is yet too recorded of both the parties. The question will be decided on the basis of evidence only in favour of either of the party. 5. When it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, children and parents, therefore, it will be for him to show that he is not having sufficient means to discharge his obligations; Rajathi Vs. C. Ganesan, (1999) 6 SCC 326 6. Means does not signify only visible means, such as real property or definite employment: Basanta v. Sarat, 1962 Cr.L.J. 486, 436 (Orissa). 7. An able-bodied person has sufficient means. Kandaswami Moopan Vs. Angammal, AIR 1960 Mad 348 : (1960) CriLJ 1098. 8. Therefore, learned Family Court rightly decided that the applicant is having sufficient means to discharge his obligations. 9. Section 125, Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by the Apex Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal Vs. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Others, (1978) 4 SCC 71, falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950. 10. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Others, (1978) 4 SCC 71, falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950. 10. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives, effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted by the Apex Court in the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2005) 3 SCC 636 . 11. It is also held by the Apex Court that interim maintenance pendent lite can be granted. Please see Savitri Rawat Vs. Govind Singh Rawat, (1985) 4 SCC 337 . Looking to these facts and circumstances, learned Courts below rightly granted maintenance to the respondent. I find no error in the impugned order warranting interference in this revision petition by this Court. The petition has no force, hence, it is hereby dismissed at this initial stage.