JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Through the medium of instant petition filed under section 561-A Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 08.10.2012, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramban in Criminal Revision No. 03/2012, titled 'Nazir Ahmad v. Mst. Famida and Anr.', by virtue of which the interim order of maintenance granted on 29.05.2012 by the JMIC 1st Class, Banihal, has been upheld. Petitioner has challenged the said order on the ground that impugned order is non-speaking order. He has specifically pleaded in his objections to the petition filed under Section 488 Cr.P.C., that petitioner had divorced his wife, so the petition was not maintainable. The trial court without granting opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in support of the issue that the respondent No. 1 after divorce is no more his wife and merely on the statements of the respondent No. 1's witnesses recorded by the Trial Court, returned the findings that the divorce is not proved and, thus, the Trial Court has committed the gross irregularity in holding that the divorce is not proved without affording opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. This important aspect of the case was overlooked by the Principal Sessions Court, Ramban, which has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. That petitioner has specifically pleaded in the objections that he is earning Rs. 200/- per day. On this meager amount, his mother, brother and sister are also dependent upon him; therefore, he cannot make payment to his wife. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that this petition is not maintainable because there are two concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below, which cannot be set-aside in this petition. 3. I have considered the contention of learned counsel for the respondent. 4. From the perusal of the aforesaid impugned order, it is evident that respondents herein filed a petition U/s 488 Cr.P.C., for grant of maintenance against petitioner herein on various grounds including cruelty. Petitioner herein appeared and filed objections; along with main petition, application for interim maintenance was filed by the respondents before the Court of learned Munsiff (JMIC), Banihal and the learned Munsiff (JMIC), Banihal vide order dated 29.05.2012, granted the interim maintenance of Rs. 2000/- each in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners therein). Petitioner herein appeared and filed objections; along with main petition, application for interim maintenance was filed by the respondents before the Court of learned Munsiff (JMIC), Banihal and the learned Munsiff (JMIC), Banihal vide order dated 29.05.2012, granted the interim maintenance of Rs. 2000/- each in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners therein). The learned Munsiff (JMIC), Banihal passed the said order after hearing counsel for the parties, after inviting the objections and after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the petitioners/claimants. 5. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Ramban, who vide his order dated 08.10.2012 upheld the order of JMIC, Ramban. 6. During the pendency of this lis, Respondent No. 1 had moved an application being MP No. D-128/2014 seeking correction of her name in the cause title and this Court vide order dated 04.07.2017 allowed the said application providing the name applicant/respondent No. 1 be read as Mst. Farida instead of Mst. Famida. 7. From bare perusal of impugned order of Court below, it is evident that it is based on facts, which cannot be set aside after re-appreciating the evidence; this court while exercising power under section 561-A Cr.P.C., does not act as court of appeal or revision. Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedures saves the inherent powers of the High court, by providing that nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code is to be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary (a) To give effect to any order under the Code; or (b) To prevent the abuse of the process of any Court; or (c) Otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 8. Section 488 Cr.P.C. is a social legislation, strict law of pleading are not applicable. Procedure is of summary nature; purpose of interim relief is that petitioner may survive up to final adjudication of petition U/s 488 Cr.P.C., which takes long time to finalize. Maintenance is right which accrues to a wife against husband the minute former gets married to latter. It is not only a moral obligation but also a legal duty. The primary object for granting interim maintenance to a deserted and destitute wife and children is for ensuring that wife and children should not be left beggared. Maintenance is right which accrues to a wife against husband the minute former gets married to latter. It is not only a moral obligation but also a legal duty. The primary object for granting interim maintenance to a deserted and destitute wife and children is for ensuring that wife and children should not be left beggared. The remedy provided U/s 488 Cr.P.C. is a summary remedy for securing reasonable sum by way of interim maintenance. Further, purpose of granting interim maintenance is that applicant should survive till final disposal of the main case. 9. In present petition, this fact has been admitted that petitioner is husband of Respondent No. 1 herein; it has also been admitted that Respondent No. 2 is daughter born out of their wed lock; only ground taken is that petitioner has divorced the wife prior to filing of petition. The plea of divorce is fact, which is required to be proved before court below. All other grounds taken in memo of petition are subject to judicial adjudication, which can be proved during trial. Maintenance includes money required for purchasing goods for daily use, medicine, clothing etc. It is moral and sacred duty of husband and father to maintain his wife and children. Husband and father cannot deny the maintenance to them on flimsy grounds. 10. So order under challenge by virtue of which court below has granted maintenance to his wife and child, is not high in present circumstances, when the cost of everything is escalating day by day. No law point has been raised by the petitioner. 11. In view of above, this petition is dismissed. Orders of both the courts below are upheld. Trial Court is directed to take all coercive steps against husband for execution of order of maintenance. Copy be sent to trial court for information.