JUDGMENT : 1. The instant application is directed against the order dated 28.02.2013 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in M.P. Petition No.84 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the opposite party no.2: Shobha Devi has been awarded maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month and further Rs.1,500/- each to the minor children namely, Abhishek Anand and Akhilesh Anand. 2. The facts of the case is that the opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 24.05.1994 at Bokaro Steel City according to Hindu Rites and Customs. Out of wedlock the couple were blessed with two sons namely Abhishek Anand and Akhilesh Anand. The opposite party no.2 has filed a case before the learned court below under Section 125 of Cr.P.C stating interalia that after the date of marriage, she was subjected to cruelty for dowry demand and was tortured mentally and physically and ultimately the opposite party no.2 was driven out from her matrimonial house in the month of February, 2008. Pursuant to that the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint case against the petitioner under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. It has further been alleged by the opposite party no.2 that she was driven out along with her minor sons. It has further been alleged by the opposite party no.2 that the petitioner used to earn Rs.1,000/-per month from rent of his car and further he is earning more than Rs.6,000/-per month and also earning from rent of Rs.4,000/-from his house. 3. The petitioner herein appeared in the court below and contested the petition. 4. The opposite party no.2 examined herself as P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 was her father who supported the case of opposite party no.2. The petitioner herein examined as witness no.1 and admitted the marriage and further submitted that his wife has filed a case against him, however, opposed the statement of torture etc. 5. Ms. Swati Shalini, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that the marriage was solemnized in the year 1994 and the present case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C has been filed in the year, 2008 that is after lapse of 15 years. 5. Ms. Swati Shalini, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that the marriage was solemnized in the year 1994 and the present case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C has been filed in the year, 2008 that is after lapse of 15 years. He further argued that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that the petitioner is an Auto Driver and he earns a meager amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. 6. Mr. Saket Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 has argued that there is no error in the impugned order and no interference is required. He further argued that the amount awarded by the learned court below is very reasonable and not excessive as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. I have carefully gone through the impugned order and the documents available on record and argument adduced by both the parties. In the instant case, the relationship has been admitted by both the parties. From the evidence, it is also clear that the opposite party no.2 was subjected to cruelty which forced her to file a criminal case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which is still pending. It is also admitted that the wife is unable to maintain herself and her two minor children. The argument that the petitioner is an Auto Driver and is earning Rs.3,000/- a month does not appears to be acceptable because in the present day any Auto Driver is earning not less than 300/- to 400/- per day. Further it has also come in the evidence that the petitioner is also earning from rent of his car as well as his double storied house. 8. The inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 Cr.P.C is that it commands that there has to be some acceptable arrangement so that the wife can sustain herself and the principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her and as per law, she is entitled to live a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in her house of her husband. Further as long as the wife is entitled for grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 of Cr.P.C, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. 9. The learned court below has discussed the evidence in detail and looking upon the amount of maintenance which has been awarded by the learned trial court is more than reasonable as the dearness has increased. 10. In my opinion the petitioner has failed to make out a case as there is no illegality whatsoever in the order dated 28.02.2013 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro whereby the opposite party no.2 has been awarded maintenance of Rs. 2,000/-for herself and 1,500/-each for her minor children and as such the same does not require any interference from this Court. 11. The instant application being devoid of merit is dismissed.