ORDER 1. This revision under section 397/401 of CrPC has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 21.1.2015 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Katni in Miscellaneous Case No.519/2014. The applicant/husband has been ordered to pay Rs.3000/- as maintenance amount to respondent/wife per month. 2. The respondent-wife filed an application under section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance. It is contended by her that she was ill treated for demand of dowry, she was unable to maintain herself, therefore, she may be granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. The applicant-husband entered by filing reply before learned Family Court contended that the respondent was never ill treated for demand of dowry. She is living in the house of applicant and earning Rs.200/- per day by doing stitching work. In addition the applicant also fulfils the necessary requirement of respondent for livelihood. He prays for rejection of the application on the ground that he is working as a labourer. 3. Learned Family Court has granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent-wife from 3rd November, 2011 to December, 2014 and thereafter from January, 2015 maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month is granted. Aggrieved thereby, applicant-husband has come up in this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that learned Family Court over sighted this fact that comfortable accommodation has been provided by the applicant to the respondent and other expenses for livelihood is also provided by the applicant, therefore she does not requires alimony for her maintenance. It is further submitted that learned Family Court grossly erred in deciding that the applicant is having Rs.8,000/- to 10,000/- income per month and ignored this admission of the respondent that respondent-wife earns Rs.50/- per day by teaching, therefore requested to set aside the impugned order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant at length also perused memo of revision, order under challenge as well as available record. 6. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, has rightly held, after appreciation of evidence, that the respondent is legally wedded wife of applicant. 7. 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. 6. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, has rightly held, after appreciation of evidence, that the respondent is legally wedded wife of applicant. 7. 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. 8. 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)2 SCC 503. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that applicant Jamuna Prasad himself admitted that after marriage with the respondent firstly, he married with Kalawatibai who dies and thereafter he also married another woman Vimlabai. It is also admitted fact that there was criminal case pending between the parties related with section 498A of IPC. In these circumstances respondent has every right to live separately. 10. 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 ]. 11. As per admission of applicant he is having agricultural land and as per ration card his standard of living is not below poverty line. Learned Family Court has rightly held that the applicant also having sufficient means of income to pay maintenance and, therefore, rightly awarded the maintenance amount. 12. Resultantly, this revision under section 397/401 of CrPC deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. Learned Family Court has rightly held that the applicant also having sufficient means of income to pay maintenance and, therefore, rightly awarded the maintenance amount. 12. Resultantly, this revision under section 397/401 of CrPC deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below.