JUDGMENT 1. The instant application is directed against judgment dated 08.08.2013 passed by the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, in Maintenance Case No.77 of 2009 whereby the prayer for maintenance made by the opposite party under Section 125 of Cr.P.C has been allowed directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party from the date of the order. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the opposite party is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The opposite party was married to the petitioner in accordance with the Hindu rites and ceremonies on 19.05.2001 at Laxmipur, District Deoria, Uttar Pradesh. After the marriage both went to Mumbai. The brother of the petitioner was also living at Mumbai, but soon thereafter the opposite party was subjected to torture by the petitioner, his brother and his parents. Thereafter, the opposite party instituted a case under Section 498-A/34 I.P.C. against the petitioner and his family members at Vasai Nala Sopara Police Station on 05.05.2009. Thereafter, the opposite party came to her parents'' house at Chuttu Pallu. The mother of opposite party is ailing and brothers of opposite party are unemployed. The further case of the opposite party is that she has three unmarried sisters and her father is suffering from financial crisis as such, she is unable to maintain herself. 3. The petitioner appeared before the court below and filed his show-cause. The relationship with the opposite party has not been denied rather same has been admitted by the petitioner before the court below. However, the allegations of cruelty and torture have been denied by him. The further case of the petitioner before the court below was that he has been dismissed by the Bank and he is under medical treatment and he is fully dependent upon his elder brother. 4. The opposite party has examined altogether two witnesses on her behalf Sunita Someshwar Yadav, P.W.-1 is the opposite party herself. She has supported her case stating interalia that just after three months of the marriage, she was subjected to torture for dowry. At the time of marriage, her father has spent Rs.5 lacs, ornaments and utensils etc. worth Rs.1 lac were given. She has further stated that the total expenditure incurred in the marriage was to the tune of Rs.9 lacs. At the time of marriage, her father has spent Rs.5 lacs, ornaments and utensils etc. worth Rs.1 lac were given. She has further stated that the total expenditure incurred in the marriage was to the tune of Rs.9 lacs. She has also stated in her evidence that her father was unable to fulfill the demand of dowry as such, she was driven out of the matrimonial home. In her cross-examination she has stated that her husband is still doing a job, but she cannot say as to where he is employed now. 5. P.W.2 is the father of the opposite party, he has also supported the entire case of the opposite party. In his cross-examination he has expressed his ignorance that the petitioner has been dismissed as he was lodged in jail in connection with a criminal case instituted by the opposite party. 6. The petitioner has also examined three witnesses in support of his case. O.P.W.-1 is the brother of the petitioner. He has admitted marriage between both the parties. The O.P.W.-2 has also corroborated the factum of marriage between the parties. However, he has stated further that the opposite party used to quarrel on trifles. In his cross-examination he has admitted that the petitioner is his relative. The O.P.W.-3, is the petitioner himself. He has also admitted in his evidence that marriage was solemnized with the opposite party on 19.05.2001 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies, but till today no physical relationship was established between them. The petitioner further stated in his evidence that an F.I.R was lodged against him under Section 498-A I.P.C. In his cross-examination he has specifically stated that now he is not willing to keep his wife. From this evidence it is also established that the petitioner intentionally neglects and refuses to maintain his wife (opposite party). He has also admitted in cross-examination that he owns 3 bighas ancestral land and there are two flats in Mumbai, one is in the name of petitioner''s brother and another is in the name of petitioner''s father. This evidence clearly transpires that the petitioner is well off and he has sufficient means but neglects and refuses to maintain the opposite party-wife. 7. After taking the entire evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties the learned court below held that the opposite party is legally wedded wife of the petitioner. This evidence clearly transpires that the petitioner is well off and he has sufficient means but neglects and refuses to maintain the opposite party-wife. 7. After taking the entire evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties the learned court below held that the opposite party is legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The learned court below has categorically held that the opposite party-wife is unable to maintain herself and the petitioner has sufficient means, but neglects and refuses to maintain the opposite party intentionally. 8. Mr. Nikhilesh Kr. Chatterjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order suffers from infirmity and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed and set aside. He has further argued that the learned court below should have appreciated that in the divorce suit the opposite party-wife has voluntarily agreed for the divorce without asking for any permanent alimony. He has concluded his argument by submitting that the petitioner is now sitting idle after loosing the job in ICICI Bank and it is impossible for him to pay the maintenance to the opposite party. 9. Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, the learned counsel for the opposite party has fully relied on the order of the court below and submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the instant application is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have critically gone through the evidence on record, argument advanced by both the parties and the impugned order. Now it is well settled that the husband cannot absolve from his obligation to provide maintenance merely on his plea of financial constrains, so long he is healthy, able-bodied and capable of earning. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (SMT) Vs. District Judge, Dehradun And Others reported in (1997) 7 SCC 7 at paragraph no. 8, which reads as under: "8. The wife has no fixed abode of residence. She says she is living in a Gurdwara with her eldest daughter for safety. On the other hand the husband has sufficient income and a house to himself. The wife has not claimed any litigation expenses in this appeal. She is aggrieved only because of the paltry amount of maintenance fixed by the courts. No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. On the other hand the husband has sufficient income and a house to himself. The wife has not claimed any litigation expenses in this appeal. She is aggrieved only because of the paltry amount of maintenance fixed by the courts. No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has, in the very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be always there. The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate. In the circumstances of the present case we fix maintenance pendentelite at the rate of Rs 5000 per month payable by the respondent-husband to the appellant-wife." 11. It has been held by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai reported in (2008) 2 SCC 316 at paragraph no.6 which reads as under: "6. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The phrase "unable to maintain herself" in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh ChanderKaushal v. VeenaKaushal falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat." 12. It has been held by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Vinny Parmvir Parmar Vs. Parmvir Parmar reported in AIR 2011 SC 2748 at paragraph no.12, which read as under:- "12. As per Section 25, while considering the claim for permanent alimony and maintenance of either spouse, the respondent''s own income and other property, and the income and other property of the applicant are all relevant material in addition to the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case.It is further seen that the court considering such claim has to consider all the above relevant materials and determine the amount which is to be just for living standard.No fixed formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has to be in the nature of things which depend on various facts and circumstances of each case. The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay, having regard to reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and others whom he is obliged to maintain under the law and statute. The courts also have to take note of the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and mode of life she was used to live when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party. These are all the broad principles courts have to be kept in mind while determining maintenance or permanent alimony." 13. The learned court below has given a categorical finding that the petitioner belongs to a well-off family and he has admitted that he is not willing to keep his wife and the opposite party-wife is unable to maintain herself. 14. These are all the broad principles courts have to be kept in mind while determining maintenance or permanent alimony." 13. The learned court below has given a categorical finding that the petitioner belongs to a well-off family and he has admitted that he is not willing to keep his wife and the opposite party-wife is unable to maintain herself. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, judicial pronouncements and proposition of law, I am of the considered view that the petitioner- husband cannot absolve from his obligation to provide maintenance merely on his plea of financial constraint so long he is healthy, able-bodied and capable of earning. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that at present the petitioner is not earning, will not save the petitioner from maintaining his wife as the petitioner is from well off family having properties which also provides for income to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid discussion the petitioner has failed to make out his case before this Court and as such the instant application is dismissed, being devoid of merit.