JUDGMENT : Z.A. Haq, J. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicant has challenged the order passed by the Family Court directing the applicant to pay maintenance @ Rs.2,500/- per month to the non-applicant No.1 (wife) and Rs.2,000/- per month to each of the non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 (minor sons). The Family Court has directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,500/- to the non-applicants towards the cost of the application. 4. Shri S.D. Malke, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the non-applicant No.1 (wife) is educated and has qualifications of B.P. Ed., M.P.Ed. and is working as Physical Training Instructor. It is further submitted that the applicant had filed petition praying for decree for restitution of conjugal rights, in which decree for restitution of conjugal rights is passed on 13th December, 2012 and the non-applicant No.1 has not complied with the decree and therefore, the applicant has filed execution proceedings which are pending. It is submitted that the Family Court has not properly considered these aspects and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. It is further submitted that the Family Court has committed an error in directing the applicant to pay the amount of Rs.2,500/- per month to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs.2,000/- to each of the non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 without there being anything on the record to show that the applicant has capacity to pay the above amount. It is submitted that though the applicant is granted licence of Kerosene Dealership, he has given it to some person and is getting Rs.5,000/- per month from him in lieu of that and in these facts, the directions given by the Family Court to pay the amount of maintenance are not proper. 5. The learned advocate for the non-applicants has supported the impugned order. 6. It is undisputed that the applicant is holding licence of Dealership of Kerosene. In the cause title of the application, the applicant has himself shown that he is 'Wholesale Kerosene Dealer'. The Family Court has recorded in paragraph 12 of the impugned order that the applicant has admitted that he is earning commission of about Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. 7. In the cause title of the application, the applicant has himself shown that he is 'Wholesale Kerosene Dealer'. The Family Court has recorded in paragraph 12 of the impugned order that the applicant has admitted that he is earning commission of about Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. 7. Considering the above facts, it cannot be said that the directions of the Family Court requiring the applicant to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to each of the non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are unsustainable. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The learned trial Judge has properly considered all the relevant aspects. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 8. The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.