ORDER : This petition is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad in Crl. Misc. No.7/2012 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 127 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [‘Cr.PC’, for short] came to be dismissed with costs. 2. Briefly stated the facts are: That the petitioner filed a petition under section 127 of Cr.PC before the Family Court for the modification of the order passed by the learned JMFC Court in Crl. Misc. No.283/2002 dated 24.12.2008 contending that the mother of the respondents Smt. Vijaya had filed a petition for maintenance before the JMFC Court, Dharwad in Crl. Misc. No.283/2002 and the same was allowed directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/- each to the respondents. It was alleged that the guardian of the respondents/natural mother Smt.Vijaya had acquired non agricultural developed site with building in Sy. No.65, Plot No.49B of Lakamanahalli Village and the said property is worth Rs.2,50,000/- or more from which she is getting rental income, as such she is able to maintain both the minor respondents. The aspect of acquiring the property was subsequent to passing of the impugned order in Crl. Misc. No.283/2002 and the changed circumstances in the case calls for modification of the order dated 24.12.2008 passed in Crl. Misc. No.283/2002. Respondents appeared through their Counsel, filed their objection statement denying the averments of the petition. The family court after analyzing the evidence on record, dismissed the petition with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged by the petitioner before the Family Court, would contend that the respondents are the illegitimate children and as such they are not entitled for the maintenance. It is further contended that the mother of the children being financially sound, capable of maintaining the respondents, no liability accrues to the petitioner to pay maintenance amount for the maintenance of the respondents. Thus, the learned Counsel seeks for allowing the petition, setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents supporting the impugned Judgment would contend that the petitioner being father of the respondents cannot escape from the obligation of maintaining his children. Thus, the learned Counsel seeks for allowing the petition, setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents supporting the impugned Judgment would contend that the petitioner being father of the respondents cannot escape from the obligation of maintaining his children. In order to avoid payment of maintenance, the petitioner cannot make the averments that the respondents are illegitimate children. The conduct of the petitioner in escaping the liability of making payment is apparent. The maintenance amount awarded by the family court in Crl. Misc. No. 283 of 2002 is a meager sum of Rs.1,000/- each to the respondents. Irrespective of the financial status of the mother of the respondents, it is the equal responsibility of the father to maintain the children providing the basic necessities of life like food, shelter, clothing and education etc.,. The petitioner having not made out a good ground for cancellation/modification of the order dated 24.12.2008 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 283 of 2002, the Family Court was justified in dismissing the petition with costs. Accordingly, he seeks for dismissal of the petition. 6. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material on record, it is evidenced that the family court in Crl. Misc. No.283/2002 directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to each of the minor respondents. It is apparent from the material on record that the petitioner protracted the proceedings before the Family Court in order to avoid payment of maintenance. After proceedings being adjudicated for more than six years, an order came to be passed by the Family Court in Crl. Misc. No.283/2002 directing the petitioner to make payment of maintenance of Rs.1,000/- each to the respondents. The petitioner is contending that the respondents are illegitimate children. The question of entitlement of the illegitimate children for maintenance has to be examined with reference to Section 125 of Cr.PC read with section 112 of the Evidence Act. Section 125 of Cr.PC contemplates [1] If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain [a] his wife, unable to maintain herself or [b] his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself or [c] xxxxx [d] xxxxx, upon proof of the same, monthly allowances for the maintenance of such persons can be ordered. 7. 7. It is the legal, moral and social obligation of the father to maintain his children. Such obligation cannot be transferred or shifted on the mother of the children to take care of the children independently or exclusively without getting any maintenance or assistance/support from the father of the children. It is well established legal position that section 125 of Cr.PC is designed to prevent vagrancy and destitution for the weaker section like women, children and aged parents and to provide summary and speedy remedy to get the maintenance. In the summary proceedings under section 125 of Cr.PC, the rights of the parties cannot be decided. It is only for the purpose of providing maintenance to prevent vagrancy and destitution. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot avoid obligation of paying maintenance labeling his own children as illegitimate children, which would adversely affect their future life. Child is a child. There is no discrimination between an illegitimate child and legitimate child to award maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is incumbent on the Courts to safeguard the rights and interest of the minor children who are knocking the doors of the court, seeking justice. These material aspects are rightly appreciated by the Family Court while negating the contention of the petitioner in awarding the payment of maintenance to the respondents. 8. It is discernible that the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court at Rs.1,000/- each to the respondents is a meager sum considering the cost of living, escalation of price etc. Under any circumstances, the maintenance amount of Rs.1,000/- awarded to a minor child cannot be construed as exorbitant or excessive. In the given circumstances, the impugned Judgment and Order is justifiable and cannot be found fault with. No ground made out by the petitioner to interfere with the well reasoned Judgment and Order. Petition stands dismissed with costs.