ORDER : Ananda Sen, J. This revision application has been directed against the Judgment dated 12.5.2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Maintenance Case No. 28 of 2012 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The claimant-wife has filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance. She states that her marriage has taken place on 9.5.2007 with the petitioner and out of the said wedlock, a male child was born. She further stated that she was physically assaulted for demand of dowry and was driven out of her house and from 30.5.2008 she has leaving in her paternal house. 3. A criminal case being Chas (M) P.S. case no. 59 of 2008 for allegedly committing offence under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the husband which is pending. She claims that her husband has married for the second time and is will fully refusing to maintain her. She prayed that as she has no source of income thus she and her minor child are liable to be maintained by the husband. She claims that her husband is earning Rs. 10,000/- as a Mason and also earns Rs. 50,000/- per annum as agricultural income. 4. The husband appeared and filed his reply and refuted the allegation and statement made by the wife in the claim application. He claimed that claimant is not living as a good housewife and her conduct towards opposite party is not good. He states that he is willing to keep the petitioner with full dignity but the wife is not staying with him. He further states that the claimant is able to maintain herself by selling vegetables and earning Rs. 4500/- per month and Rs. 2500/- from other sources. 5. The disputes between the parties were referred to Mediator, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Naya Sadan, Ranchi by the Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 29.6.2015 for mediation. The Mediation report, which is part of the record, suggests that in spite of best efforts and endeavours put by the Mediator, no settlement was arrived between the parties and the Mediation failed. 6. The parties now have argued at length on merit of the case. 7. I have heard the argument of the parties and perused the judgment. 8. The Mediation report, which is part of the record, suggests that in spite of best efforts and endeavours put by the Mediator, no settlement was arrived between the parties and the Mediation failed. 6. The parties now have argued at length on merit of the case. 7. I have heard the argument of the parties and perused the judgment. 8. It is not disputed that the parties were married to each other and the relationship as husband and wife is not disputed. It is also admitted that there is a minor son out of the said wedlock. 9. The husband submitted that because the wife is not living with him, he cannot be saddled with the burden of maintenance. The wife submitted that because of demand of dowry and torture perpetrated upon her by the husband, she is forced to reside in her parental house. The fact remains that there is a case instituted at the instance of the wife against the husband for an offence under Sections 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Since there is a criminal case pending for torture, assault and demand of dowry, there is reasonable ground for the wife to stay separate from the husband. 10. The husband claims that the wife is not entitled to maintenance because she is earning by selling vegetables, which fact has been denied by the claimant/wife. 11. On the point of income, there are different version. The husband has deposed that he is working as a labourer and is earning Rs. 5000/- per month and he is not engaged on each and every date of the month. The witness P.W.1 has submitted that the petitioner works as a helper of the driver of a tractor and that too not on regular basis. He states that the income of the petitioner is Rs. 500 to 700/- per month. This witness was discharged without being cross-examined. Another witness P.W.2 also admitted that petitioner works as a daily Mazdoor. The evidence of the parties on this point clearly suggests that opposite party works as labourer and do not have regular income. It has been argued by the petitioner that because of the financial constraint, he should not be directed to make payment of maintenance. This argument cannot be accepted. The evidence of the parties on this point clearly suggests that opposite party works as labourer and do not have regular income. It has been argued by the petitioner that because of the financial constraint, he should not be directed to make payment of maintenance. This argument cannot be accepted. The husband is not absolved from his obligation to provide maintenance merely on his plea of financial constraint. The petitioner, as it appears from the evidence, is working as a labourer, which suggests that he is a able bodied person and is certainly earning for his own support. That being so, he is duty bound to maintain his wife. 12. The court below has disbelieved the submission of the claimant that opposite party is earning from his landed properties. The court below taking into consideration the rate of minimum wages and excluding five holidays in a month has calculated the earning of husband as Rs. 4500/- per month. After coming to the said calculation, he has awarded Rs. 1500/- per month. 13. In my opinion, this mode of calculation is not correct. The evidence which has been led by the opposite party suggests that though opposite party works as daily wage labourer but he is not getting work on each and every day. He has no fixed income. His earning is dependent to the number of days he gets employment. Keeping this fact in view an amount of Rs. 1000/- per month as maintenance would be just and proper in the instant case. 14. In view of the finding made above, the amount of maintenance is fixed at Rs. 1000/- per month. 15. This revision application is disposed of. Revision application disposed of.