ORDER 1. This revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) has been filed by the applicant/husband against the order dated 2.7.2015, passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.387/2014, by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chhindwara, whereby learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chhindwara, directed the applicant to pay maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent/wife. 2. The application on behalf of the respondent filed under the provisions of section 125 of the Code, contending that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 13.6.2012 as per the Hindu rites and rituals. It is alleged by the respondent that after sometime of marriage the applicant and his family members were harassing the respondent on demand of dowry. The respondent has no source of income neither her parents has been able to take care of her. It is also contended that the applicant is Assistant Teacher and the fact is also on record that another lady Sangeeta is living with the applicant, therefore respondent-wife is living separately. 3. Applicant entered his appearance by filing reply and contended that the respondent has not fulfilled her marriage obligations. She went to her parents house on many occasions without giving any information and taking permission from the applicant and his parents. The applicant has never demanded any dowry. The respondent without any reason left the house of the applicant and never turned up, therefore, the application filed by the respondent deserves to be dismissed. 4. Learned Family Court allowed the application filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent, hence, this revision. 5. Shri A. D. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the finding and conclusion drawn by the learned Family Court is illegal because the applicant never harassed or tortured the respondent, who is living separately on her own will with her parents. The respondent filed the applicant on false and frivolous ground she is also mentally ill. The amount of maintenance awarded by the Family Court is without any logical and legal ascertainment of monthly income of the applicant. The respondent created all the imaginary income without any documentary proof, therefore, the impugned order dated 2.7.2015 is liable to be set aside. 6. The amount of maintenance awarded by the Family Court is without any logical and legal ascertainment of monthly income of the applicant. The respondent created all the imaginary income without any documentary proof, therefore, the impugned order dated 2.7.2015 is liable to be set aside. 6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant at length and after perusal of the available record carefully, this Court has came to conclusion that this revision has no substance; hence, not worth acceptance. 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. This facts is not disputed that the respondent is legally wedded wife of applicant. Hence, in light of above mentioned legal position the applicant is duty bound to supply food, clothes and to provide roof to the respondent/wife, if she proves sufficient reason for separate living. 10. On perusal of FIR (Ex.P-1) and MLC report (Ex.P-2) as well as looking to pendency of criminal case under section 498 of IPC between the parties, separate living of the respondent-wife is justified reason, without commenting on this fact that whether another lady Sangeeta is living with the applicant or not. 11. 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 ]. 12. Means does not signify only visible means, such as real property or definite employment: Basanta v. Sarat [1982 CrLJ 485]. 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 ]. 12. 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 ]. 13. By profession the applicant is Assistant Teacher, hence he was duty bound to produce salary slip which is very much lacking in this case. In these circumstances it can be very well presumed that applicant is having sufficient means of income. 14. In above mentioned facts and circumstances and in light of legal position learned Family Court rightly held that the applicant deserted the respondent, his wife without sufficient of cause also having sufficient means of income to pay maintenance, therefore, rightly awarded the maintenance amount. 15. In view of the aforesaid, this revision under section 397/401 of the Code stands dismissed. 16. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below.