ORDER : This revision is directed against the order dated 14th September, 2012 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.48 of 2007 by the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur allowing the prayer of O.P. No.1/applicant and directed the petitioner/Opposite party-husband to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month to the O.P.No.1-wife herein/and Rs.1000/- per month each to the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 herein being minor children from the date of order. 2. The short facts relevant to this case is that the petitioner-husband and O.P. No.1 were married on 23rd April, 1992 at Jamshedpur according to Islamic Rites and Customs. Gifts were given at the time of marriage. Out of that wedlock, two children were born who are O.P. Nos. 2 and 3/applicants in this case. Due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry, she was tortured physically and mentally and was driven out from the matrimonial house. The torture also resulted in premature birth of child but no care was shown from the husband side. The further case is that O.P. No.1/applicant no.1 had no source of income to maintain herself and her minor children whereas petitioner-husband/opposite party is engaged in a contract business at Jamshedpur and earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month but has refused to maintain the O.P. No.1/applicantwife. After the evidences of the parties, the court below gave the finding and allowed the prayer for maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to the wife and Rs.1000/- per month each to the children who are O.P. Nos. 2 and 3/applicant nos.2 and 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the provisions of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. no wife is entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance if she is living separately without any sufficient reason or she refuses to live with her husband. He further submitted that the court below has also erred in assessing the income of the husband as no sufficient proof of his income was produced before the court below. 4. In spite of valid service of notice, O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have not put in appearance before this court. 5. Learned A.P.P. appearing in this case submitted that from the impugned judgment it would appear that due to torture meted out to her, she was living separately from the husband. 4. In spite of valid service of notice, O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have not put in appearance before this court. 5. Learned A.P.P. appearing in this case submitted that from the impugned judgment it would appear that due to torture meted out to her, she was living separately from the husband. No care has been shown by the husband while the premature birth of a child had taken place nor any monetary benefit were extended at any point of time, therefore the court below has rightly came to the finding and allowed the application of maintenance. 6. Considering the above submissions of the parties and on perusal of the materials placed before this court, it appears that wife was forced to live separately due to torture on account of non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry. The court below has not specifically held the reasons of separate living by the wife but from the judgment it would appear that this is the reason of her separate living. So far income is concerned, no party has adduced specific evidence on the income of the petitioner-husband but the court cannot ignore the liability and responsibility of the husband to maintain his wife if she is otherwise fulfilling the conditions as provided in section 125 Cr.P.C. Therefore the order of the court below is modified that the petitioner-husband will pay Rs.1,000/- per month to the wife O.P. no.1/applicant no.1 and Rs. 750/- per month each to the O.P. Nos.2 and 3/applicant nos.2 and 3 (minor children) towards the monthly maintenance as ordered by the court below. 7. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed subject to the modification in the quantum of maintenance as ordered hereinabove. The other terms and conditions shall remain intact.