ORDER : 1. Sri. S.B.Totad, learned counsel for petitioner has appeared through video conferencing. 2. The revision petitions is posted for admission after notice to respondents. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Family Court. 4. The order dated 20.07.2015, passed by the Additional Family Court, Mysore in Crl.Misc.No.34/2011 is called in question in this revision petition, whereby, learned Judge of the Family Court has directed respondent to pay Rs.5,000/-per month towards monthly maintenance to petitioner No.1 and Rs.6,000/-per month to petitioner No.2. It is this order which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the revision petition. 5. Sri.S.B.Totad, learned counsel appearing for respondent submits that the order of the Family Court suffers from serious infirmities and the same is liable to be set aside. He submits that the Family Court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record. Next, he contended that respondent is an Auto driver by profession and driving on hire basis. He is earning daily income of Rs.100/-. The allegation is that respondent is a car driver is false. Counsel submitted that respondent does not possess car driving license. It has been further contended that petitioner No.1 has deserted the company of respondent about 14 years back, without justifiable reasons and lived apart from respondent. Counsel further submitted that learned Judge erred in holding that respondent is having sufficient means as he owns agricultural lands and multistoried building. He sought to contend that respondent has seven siblings. The properties are ancestral properties and still in the joint family status. There is no partition in the family. Learned counsel submitted that learned Judge ought to have considered all these facts. Lastly, he contended that the amount ordered towards maintenance is exorbitant, illegal and contrary to law. Therefore, he submitted that the amount of maintenance allowance may be scaled down and revision petition may be allowed. 6. Heard and carefully perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that respondent and petitioner No.1 are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 17.02.1993 at Sri.Rama Devara Sannidhi, Chunchanakatte, K.R.Nagar Taluk and they are blessed with one daughter, who is none other than petitioner No.2. 6. Heard and carefully perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that respondent and petitioner No.1 are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 17.02.1993 at Sri.Rama Devara Sannidhi, Chunchanakatte, K.R.Nagar Taluk and they are blessed with one daughter, who is none other than petitioner No.2. Petitioner and respondent were blissfully lived together for sometime and due to differences of opinion, petitioner No.1 was constrained to leave the matrimonial house and started living at her parental house. It is also not in dispute that after the marriage, both of them lived blissfully for sometime. Contending that her husband is having sufficient means, neglected and refused to maintain her and minor daughter, petitioner No.1 initiated proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking maintenance from her husband. Upon consideration of material evidence on record, learned Judge held that petitioners have proved that respondent has willfully refused and neglected to maintain the petitioners and petitioners are unable to maintain themselves. Now the controversy is with regard to quantum of maintenance. Petitioner No.1 averred that respondent is car driver and he is earning sufficient income; he also owns immovable properties. To substantiate the claim, petitioners have produced RTC extracts pertaining to the lands which discloses that lands are in the joint names of respondent and other family members. Learned Judge in extenso referred to the evidence on record and found that respondent is having sufficient means and accordingly, directed the respondent to pay maintenance. While arguing the case, learned counsel for respondent adhered to the contention that respondent is an auto driver and he drives the same on hire basis. He is earning a daily income of Rs.100/-. He is unable to maintain himself from the said income. I find myself unable to accept the said contention, since, if a man is healthy and able-bodied, he must be held to have sufficient means to support his wife and children and he cannot be relieved of his obligations. It would be relevant to observe the object of the summary proceedings for maintenance is to prevent vagrancy and that object is achieved by directing provisions for lodging, food and clothing to the wife, the children who are minor or the parents as the case may be. It would be relevant to observe the object of the summary proceedings for maintenance is to prevent vagrancy and that object is achieved by directing provisions for lodging, food and clothing to the wife, the children who are minor or the parents as the case may be. Upon considering the minimum requirement to live in the society by meeting out food, clothing and day-to-day expenses and more particularly, the education expenses, learned Judge has passed the order of maintenance allowance of Rs.5,000/-to petitioner No.1 and Rs.6,000/-to petitioner No.2. In my opinion, there is nothing in the facts proved to justify the interference with the order. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by learned Judge of the Family Court. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed.