ORDER : The petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.05.2015 passed in Maintenance Case No.77 of 2007 by which he has been directed to pay Rs.2,000/-per month each to both of his children and Rs.1,000/-per month to his wife, as maintenance. 2. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two-fold contentions; (i) the order of maintenance is in the teeth of sub-section 4 to section 125 Cr.P.C, inasmuch as, the learned Family Court Judge has not recorded a finding that the opposite-party has a just excuse not to live in the company of her husband, and (ii) the order of maintenance has been passed in ignorance of the evidences laid by the parties and it has been passed without ascertaining the income of the petitioner. 3. At the outset, it needs to be recorded that the opposite-party, the wife of the petitioner, has filed a criminal case under section 498A IPC against her husband and in-laws and M.T.S No.10 of 2006 seeking restitution of conjugal rights was decreed but the opposite-party has maintained that the petitioner was not ready to keep her with him. Before the Conciliator, the petitioner agreed to keep his wife and minor daughter in a separate rented house, however, the opposite-party refused to live there on the ground that only if her mother-in-law and elder sister-in-law would live with her she would live in the rented accommodation. 4. In the present proceeding, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the opposite-party stating as under: 7. “That it is stated that the petitioner had earlier filed a suit being M.T.S. No.10 of 2006 for restitution of marriage which was decreed, but, as a matter of fact the petitioner is not ready to keep the answering opposite party and his two daughters and when the answering opposite party started facing financial hardship in her maike, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Court below for getting maintenance which was numbered as Maintenance Case No.77 of 2007 and on contest, the application was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.2000/- per month to each of the two children and Rs.1000/- per month to his wife. The petitioner just to evade from his responsibility, is filing one application after another, but not ready to take his wife and children even after getting a decree in a suit filed for restitution of conjugal right. The petitioner has already settled his marriage with another lady who is also a divorcee. 8. That it is stated that the petitioner along with her children is facing acute financial hardships, but the petitioner is not ready to comply the order passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Maintenance Case No.77 of 2007.” 5. In the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C, the applicant has examined herself and three other witnesses including her mother and brother. The petitioner, the opposite-party in the said proceeding, has examined himself, his father and the Ward Commissioner of Gumla Nagar Palika, Ward No.13 to prove that he is unemployed and working in the shop of his father. According to his witnesses, a panchayati was convened and attempts were made to bring back the petitioner's wife home but she had already taken away her ornaments and clothes when she left her matrimonial home. 6. The opposite-party has deposed that at the time of marriage Rs.1.50 Lacs in cash, ornaments worth Rs.4 Lacs, furniture of Rs.50,000/-and clothes and other utensils of Rs.50,000/- were given by her parents. From the wedlock, two children, who at the time of filing of the application under section 125 Cr.P.C were aged about 4 years and 2 years, were born. She has made various allegations of cruelty upon her, demand of a share by her husband in the landed property of her father, refusal by her husband and his family members to keep her with them and finally her ouster from her matrimonial home. Her mother and brother have also deposed in her support. They have also stated that the petitioner has assaulted the opposite-party. According to them, income of the petitioner is about Rs.35,000/-per month. The petitioner has, however, laid evidence that he has no independent source of income and he is working in the shop of his father. His father is a witness examined by him. His father says that the petitioner has no separate source of income. The petitioner has deposed that his father gives Rs.2500/-per month to him as remuneration for working in his shop. His father is a witness examined by him. His father says that the petitioner has no separate source of income. The petitioner has deposed that his father gives Rs.2500/-per month to him as remuneration for working in his shop. He has produced income tax returns vide Exhibit-F to F/6 series, according to which, income of his father from the shop is Rs.15,000/-. But, it is not a case pleaded by the petitioner that the shop run by his father is his exclusive property and not the joint family property. On the question of the petitioner-wife refusing to live in her matrimonial home without any just excuse, the proceeding in the Panchayati or before the Conciliator would not lead to an inference that she has refused to live with the petitioner without any reason and she has no just excuse. 7. A proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C is summary in nature. The object behind section 125 Cr.P.C is to make liable a person to maintain his spouse and/or the children who have no sufficient means to maintain themselves, if he has neglected or refused to maintain them. It is a beneficial provision. The legislative intendment is reflected under explanation to section 125 Cr.P.C whereunder a wife who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried is also entitled to seek maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. The expanse of law under section 125 Cr.P.C has gone to the extent that a wife has been held entitled to claim maintenance even from her step-son. It is, thus, apparent that on technical objection benefit under section 125 Cr.P.C cannot be denied to a claimant. 8. The learned Family Court Judge having bestowed his due consideration to the materials laid before him has awarded Rs.2,000/-per month each to both of the children and Rs.1,000/-per month to the petitioner's wife. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and keeping in mind the limitations of the revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the order dated 08.05.2015 passed in Maintenance Case No.77 of 2007 and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No.952 of 2015 is dismissed. Revision dismissed