JUDGMENT : The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 02.08.2016 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.126 of 2013 by which her husband has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to her from the date of filing of the application. 2. Mr. Amritansh Vats, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that quantum of maintenance must be determined on the basis of standing of the parties in the society and their living standards, however, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi by a cryptic order has granted Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner which is not sufficient for living a respectable and dignified life in the society. 3. In the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was registered as Original Maintenance Case No.126 of 2013, the petitioner has claimed Rs.30,000/-per month as maintenance for her. Primarily the basis for this claim was earning of her husband, that is, his salary to the tune of Rs.60,000/- per month. In his reply to the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, her husband has denied the allegations of harassment and torture and demand of Rs.10 lacs as dowry and he has stated that he has instituted a Matrimonial Suit No.166 of 2004 under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. 4. The petitioner has examined two witnesses; she has examined herself and her brother, however, her husband did not lead any evidence during the proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the basis of the materials laid before him, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi has granted Rs.10,000/-per month as maintenance to her from the date of filing of the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. In the present proceeding, several supplementary affidavits have been filed by the petitioner. In her 3rd supplementary affidavits, she has given details of her monthly needs for which she is likely to incur Rs.30,284/- per month. 6. The marriage between the parties is not in dispute. Their marriage was solemnized on 23.11.1997. The husband of the petitioner is working as Dy. Director (Translation) in the High Court of Jharkhand. Her husband has, however, pleaded that his wife is a law graduate and she runs a 'Beauty Parlour'. 6. The marriage between the parties is not in dispute. Their marriage was solemnized on 23.11.1997. The husband of the petitioner is working as Dy. Director (Translation) in the High Court of Jharkhand. Her husband has, however, pleaded that his wife is a law graduate and she runs a 'Beauty Parlour'. Regarding harassment and torture upon her, the petitioner has instituted a case being Kotwali P.S Case No.410 of 2005 which was registered on 01.07.2005. 7. On the basis of the materials brought on record, I find that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi has rightly held that the petitioner has a reasonable excuse not to live in the company of her husband and she is entitled for maintenance. In my opinion, the fact that the petitioner is highly educated and capable of earning is not a ground to deny maintenance to her by her husband. The petitioner has stated that her brother, namely, Vinay Kumar Shrivastava who has retired from the post of Carpet Training Officer is getting pension of Rs.45,000/- per month, her second sister who has retired from Government Girls' School as Principal is drawing pension of Rs.70,000/- per month and her brother, namely, Bipin Kumar Shrivastava is drawing monthly salary of Rs.80,000/- per month. These details have been given by the petitioner to fortify her claim for Rs.30,284/- per month which would be the expense likely to be incurred by her according to the status of her family members, but then, that is not the yardstick with which a claim for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is adjudicated. Living standards of her family members after the marriage of a woman is not a determinative factor, rather what is considered by the court is the living standard of her husband. The petitioner's husband was appointed in the clerical cadre when he was married to the petitioner. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 1997 and in the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was filed in the year 2013 the petitioner has claimed maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month. From the materials brought on record, there seems to be serious controversy on the salary of the husband of the petitioner. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 1997 and in the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was filed in the year 2013 the petitioner has claimed maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month. From the materials brought on record, there seems to be serious controversy on the salary of the husband of the petitioner. In her 3rd supplementary affidavit the petitioner has stated that as per her information her husband is getting a lump-sum salary of about Rs.1.50 lacs, however, she has failed to bring any document on record, whereas her husband has brought on record his salary-slip which would disclose that he is receiving about Rs.50,000/- per month after deductions. 8. Under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a husband who has sufficient income is under a duty to maintain his wife and the minor child. The object behind section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to ensure that a wife or the minor child does not live a destitute life. By now it is well-settled that the proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is summary in nature and strict rules of evidence are not insisted upon by the court. 9. Having bestowed due consideration on the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that grant of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner is not proper and, accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.08.2016 is set-aside. However, instead of remanding the matter to the Family Court, Ranchi for a decision afresh, which would not be proper in the facts of this case, I hold that grant of maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the petitioner would be just and proper. However, the amount of Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance shall be given to the petitioner from the month of January, 2020. 10. Criminal Revision No.1361 of 2016 is allowed, in the above terms.