JUDGMENT : The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 08.07.2015 in Maintenance Case No. 160 of 2008, by which he has been directed to pay Rs. 4,000/-per month to his wife and Rs. 3,000/-per month to each of his two children. 2. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three fold contentions: (i) without arraying the minor son and the daughter of the petitioner as parties in Maintenance Case No. 160 of 2008 grant of maintenance for them is bad in law, (ii) once maintenance under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is granted application under section 125 Cr.P.C is ousted, and (iii) the facts brought on record such as assault on the petitioner, filing of false criminal case against him and desertion by his wife are sufficient grounds to refuse an order under section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. In the first place, it needs to be indicated that the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C and under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are two different proceedings in law, application of one is not barred when an order is granted under the other Act [refer: “Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal Vs. Mrs Veena Kaushal and Others” reported in (1978) 4 SCC 70 ]. 4. In the proceeding in Maintenance Case No. 160 of 2008, the wife of the petitioner has examined six witnesses. Besides examining herself she has examined her two brothers, father and her daughter as witnesses in support of her claim for maintenance from her husband. The petitioner has also examined three witnesses; one was the petitioner himself and O.P. No. 2 was his father. The wife of the petitioner in her evidence has alleged torture and harassment by her husband and family members and demand of dowry. She has also alleged that for contracting a second marriage the petitioner tried to kill her by poisoning her. She has pleaded that on 19.04.2007 she was forcibly ousted by the petitioner from her matrimonial home. Both her brothers and her father have supported the allegation of torture on the applicant and earning of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 55,000/-to Rs. 60,000/-. The daughter of the petitioner has also spoken about torture to her mother and earning of his father from the printing press. However, the petitioner has deposed that he earns Rs. 1500/-per month as he is working as labourer. 55,000/-to Rs. 60,000/-. The daughter of the petitioner has also spoken about torture to her mother and earning of his father from the printing press. However, the petitioner has deposed that he earns Rs. 1500/-per month as he is working as labourer. His father has also supported the case of his wife to the extent that he is running a printing press and he has sufficient income. The petitioner has pleaded that the brothers of his wife have brutally assaulted him and a false case was lodged against him which has ended in his acquittal and the appeal preferred against the judgment of acquittal was dismissed by the High Court. 5. On the basis of the evidences laid before him, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi has awarded maintenance to the petitioner’s wife and his two children. 6. In my opinion, once the petitioner fails to dispute his marriage with the O.P. No. 2 which was solemnised on 04.05.1999 and birth of his daughter on 26.06.2000 as well as birth of his son on 08.02.2004, grant of maintenance for his children even without arraying them as party in the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C cannot be faulted. The plea set-up by the petitioner on the ground of his acquittal and refusal of his wife to stay together, in view of acrimony between the parties, are liable to be rejected. The facts disclosed by the parties in Maintenance Case No. 160 of 2008 would amply demonstrate that the O.P. No. 2 has reasonable excuse not to live in the company of her husband. 7. The proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C is summary in nature. The strict proof of a fact and the normal rule of evidence are not insisted upon in the maintenance proceedings. The wife of the petitioner has led sufficient evidence on her harassment and torture, neglect by her husband and sufficient income of her husband to claim maintenance. And, the evidences laid by the petitioner do not make out a case of exception as indicated under section 125 Cr.P.C. 8. In view of the above discussions and keeping in mind the limitations of the revisional jurisdiction [refer, “Sheonandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar” reported in (1987) 1 SCC 288], I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 1060 of 2015 is dismissed.