JUDGMENT : The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.08.2015 passed in Maintenance Case No.02 of 2011 by which he has been directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to his wife and Rs.1 lakh in lump-sum as maintenance from the date of filing of the application till the date of the order. 2. The marriage between the parties is not disputed by the petitioner. His marriage was solemnized with opposite party about 60 years back. His eldest daughter is aged about 45 years and just two years before his retirement he has contracted second marriage with a girl aged about 23 years. From the first marriage he has six daughters. All have now been married and from the second marriage he has one daughter and two sons. In the proceeding of Maintenance Case No.02 of 2011 his wife has examined 3 witnesses; she has examined herself as P.W 1. The petitioner has not laid any evidence. 3. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda has recorded that the husband has appeared in the proceeding of Maintenance Case No.02 of 2011 on 06.08.2011 and was granted six adjournments, however, he failed to file his show-cause and, accordingly, vide order dated 23.03.2012 he has been debarred from filing his show-cause. Evidently, he has not led any evidence to resist the claim of his wife for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The witnesses examined by his wife have stated that after his retirement the petitioner is getting pension of about Rs.16,000/-per month and he has received other post-retiral benefits of more than Rs.10 lakhs. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no document was tendered in evidence by the petitioner's wife and there was no material before the court to assess monthly income of the petitioner still maintenance of Rs.5,000/-per month has been granted to his wife. 5. The proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is summary in nature and the strict rules of evidence are not insisted by the courts. While deciding an application for maintenance the object behind section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be kept in mind. The paramount consideration in a petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to see that a wife or minor child does not suffer in destitution. While deciding an application for maintenance the object behind section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be kept in mind. The paramount consideration in a petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to see that a wife or minor child does not suffer in destitution. The order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda is based upon due consideration of the materials brought on record. There is allegation about the petitioner mistreating the opposite party. He has contracted a second marriage and, therefore, in view of the explanation to sub-section 3 to section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure his wife has just excuse not to live in his company. The petitioner who was in the service could have produced his pension papers but he has failed to do so and, therefore, it can be safely assumed that he was getting pension of about Rs.16,000/-. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and keeping in mind limitations of the revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the order dated 27.08.2015 passed in Maintenance Case No.02 of 2011 and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No.548 of 2016 is dismissed. 7. Accordingly, I.A Nos.3237 of 2016 and 5352 of 2016 stand disposed of. 8. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned through 'Fax'.