JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, one of the sons of the applicants namely, Juman Mian and Batula Bibi, is aggrieved of order dated 16.09.2016 passed in Maintenance Case No. 182 of 2010. 2. Stand taken by the petitioner is that all children are under a duty to maintain their parents and while so, all children must share the responsibility in equal proportions. 3. The trial court has held that the petitioner and other sons of the applicants are liable to maintain their parents. In the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C., the applicants have examined themselves and the petitioner has also examined himself as a witness. One more witness has been examined on behalf of the opposite parties, who has stated that in view of the employment of the applicant no. 1 namely, Juman Mian his elder son namely, Md. Salim has got employment and the petitioner has been appointed on the basis of vacancy. However, during his cross-examination he has admitted that he has not seen any document or remember the year of advertisement to assert that Juman Mian has given job to his son-Md. Salim. The trial judge has noticed that the applicants are aged about 75 years. Mother of the petitioner in her evidence has spoken about maintenance by her other sons except, the petitioner and Md. Ibrahim. She has asserted that the petitioner has not given maintenance in the last eight years. The applicant no. 1 has also during his examination in the court spoken about earnings of his children. In the aforesaid facts, the trial judge has passed the following order: 16. “Accordingly, the instant maintenance case filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. hereby stands allowed. The O.Ps are directed to pay altogether Rs. 10,000/-per month, to both the petitioners, from the date of this order. O.P.s Abdul Rahman and Md. Salim, are directed to pay Rs. 3,500/-each, per month for both the petitioners, each petitioner taking Rs. 1,750/-per month, from each of these two O.Ps. The other three O.Ps namely, Md. Akbar, Md. Hussain and Md. Ibrahim, are directed to pay Rs. 1,000/-each per month for both the petitioners, each petitioner taking Rs. 500/-per month, from each of these three O.Ps. 3,500/-each, per month for both the petitioners, each petitioner taking Rs. 1,750/-per month, from each of these two O.Ps. The other three O.Ps namely, Md. Akbar, Md. Hussain and Md. Ibrahim, are directed to pay Rs. 1,000/-each per month for both the petitioners, each petitioner taking Rs. 500/-per month, from each of these three O.Ps. The O.Ps are further directed to pay the aforesaid maintenance amount to the petitioners regularly by the 7th day of every succeeding month, failing which the petitioners would be entitled to recover the same through the process of the court. It is further directed that, the O.P. No. 1, Abdul Rahman shall pay the arrear @ Rs. 5,000/-per month, till today, as directed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 20.02.2015 in Cr. Revision No. 991 of 2014, failing which the petitioners would be entitled to recover the same through the process of the court.” 4. By now it is widely accepted that the provision under section 125 Cr.P.C. is a social and beneficial provision and powers of the Revisional Court is quite limited; detail examination of the evidence is not permissible in the revision petition (refer, “Sheonandan Paswan Vrs. State of Bihar and Others” reported in (1987) 1 SCC 288]. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and, more particularly, the evidence led by the applicants in Maintenance Case No. 182 of 2010, no interference is required in this matter and accordingly challenge to the impugned order dated 16.09.2016 passed in Maintenance Case No. 182 of 2010 fails. 6. In the result, Criminal Revision No. 246 of 2017 is dismissed.