ORDER : The present petition is preferred against the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Belgaum, in Crl. Misc. No.145/2013 in awarding a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m. to respondent No.1 and Rs.5,000/- p.m. to respondent No.2 as maintenance from the date of petition till the marriage of respondent No.2 and also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. For the purpose of easy understanding and convenience, the ranks of the parties as per their ranks before the trial Court is retained. 3. The petitioner, Smt. Kaveri and Kum. Sharada have filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent claiming maintenance on the ground that, the respondent has neglected and refused to maintain petitioner No.1 who is the wife and petitioner No.2 who is the daughter of the respondent. Inspite of repeated requests he did not make any arrangements for the maintenance and welfare of the petitioners. Therefore, claiming an amount of Rs.25,000/- so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned and Rs.10,000/- so far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, a petition was moved before the trial Court. The respondent appeared before the trial Court, contested the proceedings denying all the allegations made in the petition and also he has taken a specific stand that, the wife has voluntarily left the conjugal company of the husband without any valid reasons and that, he has been ready and willing to lead the marital life with his wife along with the child. 4. It is also contended that the petitioners are not entitled for the maintenance, as claimed for, as she left the conjugal company leaving the family of respondent in lurch as the mother of the respondent was suffering from cancer. The wife has also filed domestic violence case and in fact made the husband to run from pillar to post. Therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. 5. The petitioner No.1 has specifically stated that, her husband is well off and the joint family consists of so many properties including a cloth business and the respondent – husband has got sufficient income and one of the land which has been acquired by the respondent and his father is worth more than one crore rupees and they are affluent to pay the maintenance as prayed by the petitioners. 6. 6. Per contra, countering the above claim the respondent has taken up the contention that, the cloth business was exclusively run by his father and he receives nothing from the said business. He has a Tata Qualis motor car for his livelihood and he earns very less money from the said vehicle etc. Therefore, he is unable to make such payment as prayed for by the petitioner. 7. On the basis of the rival contentions of the parties, the trial Court has framed certain points for determination which are as follows : (i). Whether the petitioner No.1 has proved that she was neglected and refused by the respondent? (ii). Whether petitioner No.1 further proves that the respondent has sufficient means to pay maintenance to petitioners? (iii). What order? 8. The petitioner No.1, in order to prove her case examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined one more witness as P.W.2 and exhibited 11 documents Exs.P1 to P11. Respondent – husband has also examined himself as R.W.1 and one more witness as R.W.2 and got marked Exs.R1 to R3. After thorough analysis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court has come to a conclusion and passed the order as noted above. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends before the Court that, even considering the oral and documentary evidence of P.W.1 she has not produced any material to show that, the respondent has got in his name any exclusive property and that the property which was acquired belonged to him or to the joint family of the respondent and his father and no material is placed to show that, they have received one crore rupees in that regard. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that, father of the respondent has only received an amount of Rs.33,00,000/- from the acquisition of the land which was the self-acquired property of the father. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that, father of the respondent has only received an amount of Rs.33,00,000/- from the acquisition of the land which was the self-acquired property of the father. He further contends before the Court that, the documents produced by the wife and the oral evidence adduced do not disclose any certain proof to show that the respondent was having income of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per month and further he submitted that, he is only a driver-cum-owner of Tata Qualis car and he earns only Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- p.m. Therefore, under the above said circumstances, he is unable to make payment of such amount as ordered by the trial Court. He also further contends that this Court while granting interim order has directed him to pay an amount of Rs.7,500/ p.m. and he is able to pay the said amount and he is ready and willing to pay such amount. Therefore, the maintenance amount ordered by the trial Court may be reduced to that extent. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submit before this Court that, the evidence if it is read in proper perspective clearly goes to show that, the respondent and his father have been living together in a joint family and they are earning together and its joint earnings of the father and son. All other facts are admitted with regard to the marriage and also the wife living apart from the husband and also the family business and that, he has been earning independently Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- p.m. by running a Tata Qualis car. Therefore, the surrounding circumstances clearly establishes that, the respondent is affluent and capable of making payment as ordered by the trial Court. There is no question of interfering with the orders passed by the trial Court. 12. Having heard the above said arguments of the learned counsels, I have carefully reevaluated the evidence on record though it is not necessary while exercising the powers of revision. 13. It is not in dispute that, the husband and wife have abandoned their conjugal company and they are not living together and wife and child are living separately. It is also not in dispute that, the husband has not made any arrangement for their maintenance prior to she going to the Court for claiming maintenance. 14. 13. It is not in dispute that, the husband and wife have abandoned their conjugal company and they are not living together and wife and child are living separately. It is also not in dispute that, the husband has not made any arrangement for their maintenance prior to she going to the Court for claiming maintenance. 14. It is also not in dispute that, the father of the respondent – husband has been running a cloth business and father has received an amount of Rs.33,00,000/- by way of compensation for having acquired his land. It is also an admitted fact that, the husband has been independently doing his business like running the Tata Qualis vehicle and earning Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. With this background, the Court has to ascertain whether the husband is able to pay the amount as ordered by the trial Court. 15. Of course, in the course of examination-in-chief wife has categorically stated about her status and that, he is entitled for such amount as prayed for. In the course of cross-examination so many questions have been put with regard to she voluntarily left the company of her husband even though the husband was ready and willing to lead marital life with her. Inspite of such lengthy cross-examination, she was stubborn and deposed that he had life threat to live with her husband, and therefore, she was reluctant to go and live with her husband. In the course of cross-examination, in fact, nothing has been suggested to her as to what is the exact income of the husband out of running the Qualis car or from any other means. Though it is suggested that the mother of the husband was suffering from cancer, but now she has recovered and she is well as admitted by the husband himself. In the course of cross-examination of the respondent also though he denied that, his father has been running a cloth business but in the course of cross-examination he has categorically admitted that, the said business is a family business and his father has been looking after the said shop. When once it is admitted that, some of the properties which are existed to the family though it is run by one of the member of the joint family it is not that each and every person should take care of that business. When once it is admitted that, some of the properties which are existed to the family though it is run by one of the member of the joint family it is not that each and every person should take care of that business. If one person takes care of the business of the family it would definitely enure to the benefit of others. 16. It is also an admitted fact that, no other responsibilities are there so far as the respondent and the father of the respondent are concerned, because all the female members of the family were married and they are happily living with their husband. Further it is not stated in the course of evidence as to what exactly the earning of the husband and how much amount he is ready and willing to pay in favour of his wife. Even to that extent he has not spelt out anything even in the cross-examination. Therefore, the Courts have to look into the conduct of the parties though it is argued that the wife has left the conjugal company of the husband only with an intention to grab the money of the husband. In my opinion, such arguments cannot be accepted because if the wife has come out from the house if she was interested in extracting the money she would not have come out from the house. As her father-in-law and husband have received an amount of Rs.33,00,000/-. By living together with them with all love and affection she would have enjoyed that money. The conduct of the wife has to be tested from the surrounding circumstances. There is absolutely no allegation in the written statement or in the cross-examination of the wife that, she has got any other source of income for her maintenance to maintain herself and the child. Therefore, it goes without saying that, without any other option the wife has to approach the Court. It is the duty of the husband to say and show to the Court his exact income and how much he is ready and willing to pay to his wife and child. Of course, if there is any allegation that, the wife has left the conjugal company without any reasons atleast he would have made some arrangements for his child but has also not taken care, as a dutiful father of the child. Of course, if there is any allegation that, the wife has left the conjugal company without any reasons atleast he would have made some arrangements for his child but has also not taken care, as a dutiful father of the child. Therefore, in my opinion, the allegations made against the wife are all untenable and even the allegations made by the wife against the husband are also not proved to the satisfaction of the Court. 17. Under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. all those allegations and counter allegations are not necessarily gone into. It is only to be seen that, whether the husband has neglected the wife and refused to maintain her and the child, which is abundantly made clear in this case, evidenced by strained relationship between the parties. 18. Coming to the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial Court, it is evident from the cross-examination of the husband R.W.1, he has categorically admitted the need of the wife. He has stated that, he has made all his efforts to get back his wife and filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. At the time of arguments, it is admitted that the said petition was dismissed. He has also stated that, he has made efforts to take back his daughter, but he has not produced any material to that effect. He further admitted that, he has not given any gift or money to his small child who is aged about 4½ years and he has also admitted that the wife requires Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per year for the expenses towards the education of the child and she also requires some amount towards the medical expenses and clothing, but he denies that his wife requires to the extent of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month for the nourishment of child. Though he denied that the wife and child are not entitled for such an amount, but in view of the above said admissions the child itself requires Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month for the purpose of maintenance, clothing, schooling, nourishment, etc. Therefore, in my opinion, awarding maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the child is less considering the admission given by the husband himself. Therefore, by overall looking into the materials on record an amount of Rs.15,000/- granted to the wife and child, in my opinion, is nowhere exorbitant. Therefore, in my opinion, awarding maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the child is less considering the admission given by the husband himself. Therefore, by overall looking into the materials on record an amount of Rs.15,000/- granted to the wife and child, in my opinion, is nowhere exorbitant. Considering the circumstances that the respondent has got some properties, i.e., joint family business, cloth business and the father of the husband has got many number of properties as admitted by him and he has got a separate house and husband’s mother has also got a separate house and plots to their name. 19. Under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the wife has to spend reasonable money for the purpose of her shelter, clothing, day-to-day expenses etc. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.