ORDER 1. This revision under section 19(4) of Family Court Acts, 1984 has been filed by the applicant/husband against the order dated 5.5.2016, passed in MJC No.264/2015, by learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Satna (M.P.), whereby learned Family Court, enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.800/- to Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. 2. The application on behalf of the respondent was filed under the provisions of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to as “the Code”, contending that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized about more than 37 years ago as per the Hindu rites and rituals. It is contended by the respondent that after marriage the applicant used to harass the respondent and in the year 1986, the applicant seized the ornaments and other articles from the respondent and deserted her, since then the respondent has been living at her paternal house. It is also contended that the respondent has neither any source of income nor her parents is able to take care of her. It is also contended that the applicant is very good source of income. 3. Applicant entered his appearance by filing reply and contended that the respondent has not fulfilled her marriage obligations. The respondent without any reason left the house of the applicant and never turned up. The respondent has agricultural land from which she earns and also gains money from grocery shop, work of stitching, thus the respondent has enough money to survive. 4. Shri Ravendra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the finding and conclusion drawn by the learned Family Court is illegal, hence, liable to be set aside because applicant never harassed or tortured the respondent, who is living separately on her own will. The amount of maintenance awarded by the Family Court is without any logical and legal ascertainment of monthly income of the applicant. The respondent has agricultural income and also income from stitching, hence able to maintain herself, therefore, the enhanced maintenance amount by the revisional Court is on higher side, hence, the impugned order dated 5.5.2016 is liable to be set aside or deserves to be modified. 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant at length and after perusal of the available record carefully, this Court has come to conclusion that this revision has no substance; hence, not worth acceptance. 6. 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant at length and after perusal of the available record carefully, this Court has come to conclusion that this revision has no substance; hence, not worth acceptance. 6. Section 125 CrPC 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 v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and others, reported in ( AIR 1978 SC 1807 ), falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950. 7. 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 v. State of Gujarat and others, reported in [2005(II) MPWN 15=(2005)2 SCC 503]. 8. This facts is not disputed that the respondent is legally wedded wife of applicant. Hence, certainly the applicant/husband is duty bound to supply of food, clothes and to provide roof to the respondent/wife. Now both are senior citizens. 9. It is the obligation of the husband to maintain wife, father to maintain children and son to maintain parents. It will, therefore, be for him to show that he has no sufficient means to discharge his obligation: Rajathi v. C. Ganesan [ (1999)6 SCC 326 ]. Means does not signify only visible means, such as real property or definite employment: Basanta v. Sarat [1982 CrLJ 485]. An able-bodied person has sufficient means: Kandaswami v. Angammal [ AIR 1960 Mad 348 : 1960 CrLJ 1098 ]. 10. It is apparent from the perusal of record that firstly vide order dated 19.4.1994, about 22 years ago learned JMFC allowed the application filed by the respondent wife and also directed the applicant husband to pay maintenance amount. Thereafter, application filed under section 127 of the Code by the respondent for enhancement of maintenance was also allowed vide order dated 20.1.2005, about more than 11 years and finally learned Family Court vide order dated 5.5.2016 allowed third application filed by the respondent wife. 11. Thereafter, application filed under section 127 of the Code by the respondent for enhancement of maintenance was also allowed vide order dated 20.1.2005, about more than 11 years and finally learned Family Court vide order dated 5.5.2016 allowed third application filed by the respondent wife. 11. In light of above facts it will be futile exercise to consider these facts that the respondent wife has left the house of the applicant husband without any reason and never turned out. 12. At this juncture, only question is to ascertain the income of the applicant. 13. It is averred by the respondent in the Courts below that the applicant has a business of wholesale grain merchant in village Birsinghpur having two grocery shops and landlord of pakka house and out of his business and assets he earns sufficient amount per month. The applicant is having sufficient income to pay enhanced maintenance amount. 14. On above mentioned facts and circumstances, so far as the quantum of maintenance amount is concerned, keeping in mind the present scenario of sky rocketing prices learned Court below after considering overall picture rightly determined the amount of monthly maintenance. 15. In view of the aforesaid, this revision under section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 stands dismissed. 16. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Courts below.