JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant, Mr. Basavaraj, is aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2015, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Vijaypur, whereby the learned Judge has granted a maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to each respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant, Basavaraj, was married to Ms. Priya on 02.05.2004 according to Hindu customs and rites. After the marriage, both of them stayed as husband and wife for only two months. According to the respondent No.1, Smt. Priya, she was subjected to cruelty and humiliation, as the appellant and his family members kept on demanding more dowry from her parents. Therefore, she was constrained to return to her parental house. Subsequently, the elder members of both the families reconciled the couple, and the respondent No.1 went back to the matrimonial home. But even thereafter, the situation between the couple did not change. For nine long years, according to the respondent No.1, she lived with the appellant. But as she was subjected again to acts of cruelty, once again she went back to her parental house. On 08.10.2009, respondent No.1 delivered a girl child. But even after the delivery of the child, neither the appellant, nor his family members came to see the child. Since the respondent No.1 could no longer afford to maintain herself, or the child, she filed the suit for seeking maintenance of Rs.4,000/per month for herself and for her child. 3. In order to support her case, the respondent No.1 examined herself as a witness, and submitted four documents. In turn, the appellant examined three witnesses, and submitted eight documents. After going through the evidence submitted by both the parties, by order dated 03.08.2015, the learned Judge directed the appellant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to each of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 4. Mr. G.G. Chagashetti, the learned counsel for the appellant, has pleaded that the appellant merely owns 2 acres and 25 guntas of land. The earning through the said land is too meager for the appellant to be able to pay the maintenance of Rs.4,000/to each of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the maintenance amount should be reduced by this Court. 5. On the other hand, Mr. The earning through the said land is too meager for the appellant to be able to pay the maintenance of Rs.4,000/to each of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the maintenance amount should be reduced by this Court. 5. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Mamadapur, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, pleads that it is the moral and legal duty of the husband to maintain the wife and child. While the appellant is able to eke out a living from the land owned by him, the respondent No.1 is absolutely unemployed. Yet she is saddled with the responsibility of having to bring up her young girl child. In case sufficient maintenance is not paid to her and to her child, she will be reduced to hand to mouth existence. Therefore, the learned counsel has supported the impugned judgment. 6. It is, indeed, trite to state that a husband is legally bound to maintain the wife and a child born within the wedlock. In case, an unemployed wife is forced to look after herself, and the child, the chances are that she may take to the wrong path in life. In order to prevent the woman from become wayward, the law imposes a duty upon the husband to look after his wife and any child born within the wedlock. In order to escape discharging this duty, poverty is no defence. Therefore, even if the appellant does not have sufficient means, even then, he is legally liable to maintain the wife and the child. 7. Considering the high prices for essential commodities which is prevalent in the country, considering the fact that the respondent No.1 is saddled with the responsibility of not only looking after the respondent No.2, a minor child, but also is saddled with the responsibility of educating the child, a maintenance of Rs.4,000/- for each one of them is a reasonable amount. 8. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. 9. By order dated 16.11.2016, this Court had directed that merely Rs.4,000/- has to be paid to the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Thus, there is an arrears of Rs.4,000/- from 16.11.2016 till present. The appellant is directed to clear the arrears within a period of six months from today. 9. By order dated 16.11.2016, this Court had directed that merely Rs.4,000/- has to be paid to the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Thus, there is an arrears of Rs.4,000/- from 16.11.2016 till present. The appellant is directed to clear the arrears within a period of six months from today. In case the appellant fails to clear the arrears, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall be free to initiate contempt proceedings against the appellant before this Court. With the aforementioned directions, this appeal stands dismissed.