JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. The present petition has been instituted against Order dated 1.4.2015 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, HP in Case No. 20-S/10 of 2013. 2. ?Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioners filed an application under Section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance allowance before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, District Solan, HP. According to the averments made in the application, petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of respondent. Marriage was solemnised on 21.4.2003 as per Hindu rites and customs. Petitioner No.1 resided with the respondent in his house at Village Hara Mehta Post Office Goayala, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, HP. One daughter Kirti was born on 1.3.2004 and son Nitish was born on 25.7.2007. After marriage, behaviour of respondent towards petitioner No.1 turned hostile and he started causing physical and mental cruelty upon the petitioner No.1 and demanded dowry from her. She was also accused of giving birth to a female child. She was constrained to bring the matter to the notice of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Dhakrayana on 28.5.2005. Matter was compromised on 15.6.2005. Thereafter, respondent alongwith his parents tried to burn petitioner No.1 with kerosene oil on 24.12.2005. Petitioner No.3, Nitish fell seriously ill in February, 2008. Respondent did not take him to the doctor. Petitioner No.1 even reported the matter to the Protection Officer and also filed a complaint under Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act against the respondent in the Court of ACJM Kasauli. Same was compromised on 20.4.2009. Behaviour of respondent remained hostile. Petitioner No.2 was mercilessly beaten up by the respondent and her tooth was broken on 4.3.2012. Respondent has thrown out the petitioner No.1 from matrimonial house. She had no source of income. Petitioner No.2 was studying in 4th standard and petitioner No.3 was studying in Nursery class in St. Thomas School. Respondent was working in a factory and his monthly income was Rs.15,000/- . He has also got plenty of property. His total income from all sources was Rs.45,000/- per month. She prayed for a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance. It is in these circumstances that the application was filed. 3. Application was contested by the respondent. Factum of marriage has been admitted. It was denied that he treated petitioner No.1 with cruelty. His total income from all sources was Rs.45,000/- per month. She prayed for a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance. It is in these circumstances that the application was filed. 3. Application was contested by the respondent. Factum of marriage has been admitted. It was denied that he treated petitioner No.1 with cruelty. According to him, petitioner No.1 was working in a factory and drawing a salary of Rs.8,500/- per month. He was not earning Rs.45,000/- per month as alleged. 4. Issues were framed by the learned ACJM. He allowed maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 and maintenance of Rs.1500/- each per month, to petitioners No.2 and 3. Petitioners were also held entitled to litigation expenses amounting to Rs.2,200/-. Respondent filed a revision petition before Sessions Judge against Order dated 6.9.2013. Learned Sessions Judge, allowed the revision partly and maintenance allowance allowed by the ACJM Kasauli to the petitioner No.1, was set aside. Maintenance awarded to petitioners No.2 and 3 was upheld. Hence, this petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 6. Petitioner No.1 has led her evidence by way of filing affidavit Ext. PW-1/A. She has also produced on record receipt of fees of Master Nitish Ext. PW-1/D and Ext. PW-/E, stationery receipts for Rs.180/-, Ext. PW-1/F, Rs.777/- Ext. PW-1/G, House Rent receipt for March 20012 to January 2013 vide Ext. PW-1/H-1 to Ext. PW-1/H-11, school fees receipt of Nitish Ext. PW-1/J-1 to Ext. PW-1/J-10, fee of Kirti Ext. PW-1/K-1 to Ext. PW-1/K-10, copy of Rapat mark A, medical mark B, list of jewellery Mark C, notice mark D and Mark C. According to the averments as made in the affidavit, marriage of petitioner was solemnised in 2003. She was harassed for bringing more dowry. Daughter was born in 2004. Respondent used to abuse her and administer beatings to her after the birth of the daughter. She filed a complaint before Panchayat on 28.5.2005. Matter was compromised on 15.6.2005. Respondent and his family members tried to put her on fire on 15.6.2005. Son was born in 2007. Petitioner No.3 fell ill. He was not taken to the doctor by the respondent. She was also abused by respondent and his father before the Doctor. She has also filed a petition before Protection Officer in the year 2009. Respondent and his family members tried to put her on fire on 15.6.2005. Son was born in 2007. Petitioner No.3 fell ill. He was not taken to the doctor by the respondent. She was also abused by respondent and his father before the Doctor. She has also filed a petition before Protection Officer in the year 2009. She also filed a complaint against respondent under Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, before ACJM Kasauli. She was forced to compromise the same. In 2011, respondent was paid Rs.40,000/- by her parents. Rs.70,000/- was paid in the month of January, 2012. Daughter was beaten up by respondent. Her tooth was broken. He was not looking after the children. One complaint was also pending before ACJM Kasauli under the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Respondent was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Total income of respondents was Rs.45,000/- per month. In her cross-examination, she admitted that they were living together at Barotiwala. She was ready and willing to live in the village. A Government school was situate in the village of respondent. She was not ready and willing to teach her children in the government school. She denied the suggestion that respondent has not administered beatings to her daughter. She denied the suggestion that she alongwith her brother had beaten up the respondent. She denied the suggestion that respondent had no source to pay maintenance. She denied the suggestion that she was working in private company. 7. Joginder Singh Thakur, Manager, M/s TDS Placement Baddi has appeared as RW-1. According to him, petitioner No.1 was drawing salary of Rs.5,000/- as per Ext. RW-1/B and Ext. RW-1/B. He admitted in his cross-examination that salary of petitioner No.1 for the month of June 2013 was Rs.4106/-. 8. Respondent also led his evidence by way of filing affidavit Ext. RW-2/A. According to him, petitioner has left his company without sufficient reason. She was working in a factory and was earning Rs.8,500/- per month. He was beaten up by the family members of the petitioner No.1. They were influential persons. He was forced to leave the job in the factory. He was unemployed at the time of filing affidavit. Compromise was arrived at between the parties on 20.4.2009. He was providing maintenance to the petitioners. He was beaten up by the family members of the petitioner No.1. They were influential persons. He was forced to leave the job in the factory. He was unemployed at the time of filing affidavit. Compromise was arrived at between the parties on 20.4.2009. He was providing maintenance to the petitioners. Government school was situate near his house and he persuaded the petitioner No. 1 to get admission of children in that school where qualified teachers were employed. Petitioner No.1 was living with her parents without consent or permission of the respondent. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was a B.Com. His marriage was solemnised with petitioner No.1 in 2003. They lived together in the village for one year. He admitted that petitioner No. 1 has lodged complaint against him in the Panchayat on 28.5.2005. He also admitted that he asked the petitioner to withdraw the same. He was not aware that on 24.12.2005 an attempt was made to put petitioner No.1 on fire. He was not aware that petitioner had filed a complaint against him but admitted that matter was compromised. He denied that he has beaten up petitioner No.1. They lived separately during 2007-09. Children were with petitioner No.1. He has not paid any maintenance to the petitioners. Entire expenditure was borne by the parents of petitioner No.1. He also admitted that complaint was filed by the petitioner No.1 before Protection Officer. He was summoned by the Protection Officer. He agreed to take petitioner No.1 to his house on 3.3.2009. However, he has not taken her to his house. A case was filed against him under the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Thereafter matter was compromised. He has agreed to take children to Nalagarh. They remained at Nalagarh for one year and thereafter at Barotiwala. He denied that Rs.60,000/- was paid to him by his in-laws. He has never beaten up his daughter. He denied Mark A, report and Mark B medical. He again admitted that since March, 2012, he has not paid maintenance to the petitioners. He was not aware that in which class, his daughter was studying. He admitted that expenditure of his daughter towards education was Rs.3,000-4,000/- per month and of the son was Rs.2,000-3,000/- per month. He admitted that the expenditure towards books was Rs.2577/-. He also admitted that Ext. PW-1/B and Ext. PW-1/C were admission charges and Ext. He was not aware that in which class, his daughter was studying. He admitted that expenditure of his daughter towards education was Rs.3,000-4,000/- per month and of the son was Rs.2,000-3,000/- per month. He admitted that the expenditure towards books was Rs.2577/-. He also admitted that Ext. PW-1/B and Ext. PW-1/C were admission charges and Ext. PW-1/D and Ext. PW-1/E was school fees. He also admitted the receipts Ext. PW-1/J-1 to Ext. PW-1/J-10 and Ext. PW-1/K-1 to Ext. PW-1/K-10. He also admitted that petitioner No.1 had got children admitted in the school and was also incurring other expenses for maintaining petitioners No.2 and 3. He has also admitted that his children had no source of income. He was not aware that his wife was running household by borrowing money from her parents. He also admitted that despite order of the Court he has not paid any maintenance to the petitioners. He denied that he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month from agricultural land. 9. Marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent was solemnised in the year 2003. They stayed together for some time but respondent started harassing the petitioner No.1 and forced her to bring more dowry. He used to give beatings to petitioner No.1. Matter was brought to the notice of Panchayat. However, petitioner was forced to compromise the matter. Petitioner No.1 was constrained to file a complaint before Protection Officer. Respondent was summoned. Petitioner No.1 was compelled to file complaint against respondent under Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act. He had agreed to look after the family. However, fact of the matter is that respondent, in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not paid any maintenance despite the orders of the Court. He was not looking after the petitioners. It is petitioner No.1 who is looking after the children. She is bearing all the expenditure of petitioners No.2 and 3. They have been admitted in a public school. It is the duty of the parents to ensure that their children get education in the best school. Respondent could not force petitioner No.1 to get the children admitted in a government school. Respondent and his family members have also tried to put petitioner No.1 on fire. Respondent had been maltreating the petitioners. He has even the audacity to beat his daughter mercilessly. Report was filed. Child was medically examined. Respondent could not force petitioner No.1 to get the children admitted in a government school. Respondent and his family members have also tried to put petitioner No.1 on fire. Respondent had been maltreating the petitioners. He has even the audacity to beat his daughter mercilessly. Report was filed. Child was medically examined. Petitioner No. 1 was also forced to bring Rs.60,000/- to be paid to the respondent. Respondent has admitted that his wife was bearing all the expenses of her two school going children including admission fee, clothes etc. Respondent is B.Com. He is employed in a factory. It can safely be presumed that his income is not less than Rs.15,000/-. He has regular income from the agricultural land. Respondent has not denied the statement made by the petitioner No.1 that respondent is earning Rs.45,000/- per month. Petitioner No.1 has been forced to borrow money from her parents. Petitioners were forced to live separately. Petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are the children of the respondent. Respondent is an able bodied person. He was capable of earning. It can not be believed that he is unemployed. Learned ACJM has only awarded Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioners. Learned Sessions Judge has erred in law by setting aside the maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month awarded to petitioner No.1. Though the petitioner No. 1 has denied that she was employed in a factory. However, fact of the matter is that even if she was employed and getting Rs.5,000/- per month, this amount is not sufficient to maintain her and her two children. Respondent has himself admitted that the total expenditure of his daughter was Rs.3,000-4,000/- per month and that of son was Rs.2,000-3,000/- per month. The Court has to take into consideration status of the parties while determining the maintenance. Maintenance amount should be fixed taking into consideration that it is sufficient for the wife and children to live in a reasonable comfort. Only Rs.2,000/- was awarded by the learned ACJM to petitioner No.1 and that too has been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge without due application of mind. Moreover, while determining amount of maintenance, same is not required to be proved like mathematical puzzle. Some guess work is also permissible. Only Rs.2,000/- was awarded by the learned ACJM to petitioner No.1 and that too has been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge without due application of mind. Moreover, while determining amount of maintenance, same is not required to be proved like mathematical puzzle. Some guess work is also permissible. Maintenance is to be allowed after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and behaviour of the parties. Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice. It is enacted to protect the destitute women and children. Respondent can not be permitted to take the plea that he is unemployed. He is an able bodied person. He is a B.Com. There is evidence that he is working in a factory. He is getting income from agricultural land. He is in possession of sufficient means. It is not his case that he is suffering from any disease etc. 10. There is sufficient material on record to prove that the respondent has harassed petitioner No.1 for bringing insufficient dowry. She was forced to live separately. Respondent has failed to maintain the petitioners and has not even paid arrears as ordered by the Court. 11. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse reported in 2014(1)SCC 188 have held that Section 125 CrPC is a social justice legislation. Distinct approach is required to be adopted while dealing the cases under this provision. Their lordships have held as under: ?14. Of late, in this very direction, it is emphasized that the Courts have to adopt different approaches in ?social justice adjudication?, which is also known as ?social context adjudication? as mere ?adversarial approach? may not be very appropriate. There are number of social justice legislations giving special protection and benefits to vulnerable groups in the society. Prof. Madhava Menon describes it eloquently: ?It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that ?social context judging? is essentially the application of equality jurisprudence as evolved by Parliament and the Supreme Court in myriad situations presented before courts where unequal parties are pitted in adversarial proceedings and where courts are called upon to dispense equal justice. Apart from the social- economic inequalities accentuating the disabilities of the poor in an unequal fight, the adversarial process itself operates to the disadvantage of the weaker party. Apart from the social- economic inequalities accentuating the disabilities of the poor in an unequal fight, the adversarial process itself operates to the disadvantage of the weaker party. In such a situation, the judge has to be not only sensitive to the inequalities of parties involved but also positively inclined to the weaker party if the imbalance were not to result in miscarriage of justice. This result is achieved by what we call social context judging or social justice adjudication.? 15. Provision of maintenance would definitely fall in this category which aims at empowering the destitute and achieving social justice or equality and dignity of the individual. While dealing with cases under this provision, drift in the approach from ?adversarial? litigation to social context adjudication is the need of the hour.? 12. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan reported in 2015(5) SCC 705 have held that retirement of husband from service cannot be sole consideration for High Court for further reduction of a nominal amount of maintenance awarded by family court. It is further held that the sustenance does not mean bare survival and it gains more weightage when children are also with wife. Quantum should be adequate so as to enable wife to live with dignity, similar to standard with which she would have lived in her matrimonial home. In this context, status and strata become relevant. Their lordships have held as under: ?14. Coming to the reduction of quantum by the High Court, it is noticed that the High Court has shown immense sympathy to the husband by reducing the amount after his retirement. It has come on record that the husband was getting a monthly salary of Rs.17,654/-. The High Court, without indicating any reason, has reduced the monthly maintenance allowance to Rs.2,000/-. In today's world, it is extremely difficult to conceive that a woman of her status would be in a position to manage within Rs.2,000/- per month. It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right.. 16. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a measure of social justice by this Court. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right.. 16. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a measure of social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, 2008 2 SCC 316 , it has been ruled that:- "Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, 1978 4 SCC 70 falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. 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 in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat, 2005 3 SCC 636 ." This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning. 17. This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning. 19. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is limpid that the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal when the question of maintenance of wife and children arises. When the woman leaves the matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is deprived of many a comfort. Sometimes the faith in life reduces. Sometimes, she feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There may be a feeling that her fearless courage has brought her the misfortune. At this stage, the only comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is bound to give monetary comfort. She is deprived of many a comfort. Sometimes the faith in life reduces. Sometimes, she feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There may be a feeling that her fearless courage has brought her the misfortune. At this stage, the only comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is bound to give monetary comfort. That is the only soothing legal balm, for she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny. Therefore, the lawful imposition for grant of maintenance allowance.? 13. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena reported in 2015(6) SC 353 have held that sustenance does not mean animal existence but signifies leading life in similar manner as she would have lived in house of her husband. Husband has a bounden duty to enable wife to live life with dignity according to their social status and strata. Their lordships have held as under: ?2. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the Court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life "dust unto dust". It is totally impermissible. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life "dust unto dust". It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds..? 14. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Order dated 1.4.2015 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, HP in Case No. 20-S/10 of 2013 setting aside the maintenance allowed by ACJM Kasauli to petitioner No.1, is set aside. Maintenance awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, to petitioners No.2 and 3 is upheld. Petitioner No.1 is held entitled to a maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month. Respondent is directed to deposit the entire arrears of maintenance due from him with the Registry of this Court within four weeks from today. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.