JUDGMENT : The petitioner has challenged the order 30.07.2016 passed in Maintenance Case No. 309 of 2009 by which he has been directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month each to his wife and the minor son, besides Rs. 50,000/- as litigation cost which shall be paid in 10 equal instalments. 2. The only point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that without determining income of the petitioner the learned Family Court Judge has awarded maintenance to the wife and minor son which is excessive and onerous to the petitioner. 3. Previously the petitioner had come to this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1341 of 2015 against the order of interim maintenance and the revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.10.2019. 4. Under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a husband who has sufficient income is liable to maintain his wife and the minor child. The proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is summary in nature and the object behind this beneficial provision is that the wife and minor child do no suffer in destitution. It is also well-settled that in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the strict rules of evidence are not insisted upon by the courts and burden is on the husband to lead evidence to show that he has no sufficient income to maintain his wife and the minor child [refer, “Rajathi Vs. C. Ganesan” reported in (1999) 6 SCC 326 ]. 5. The marriage of the petitioner with O.P. No. 2 was solemnized on 09.05.2008 by the Special Marriage Officer, Godda and a marriage certificate was granted. The petitioner was convicted under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for sexually assaulting O.P. No. 2. She has claimed that the son was born through him, however, when he denied paternity DNA test was conducted and it stands proved that O.P. No. 3 is son of the petitioner. O.P. No. 2 has alleged harassment and torture by the petitioner and his family members. She has stated that on 05.04.2009 when she had gone to her matrimonial home with her son she was assaulted by her husband and finally ousted from the house. The petitioner’s father is working under ECL and he has monthly income of Rs. 80,000/- per month. She has stated that on 05.04.2009 when she had gone to her matrimonial home with her son she was assaulted by her husband and finally ousted from the house. The petitioner’s father is working under ECL and he has monthly income of Rs. 80,000/- per month. In the proceeding of Maintenance Case No. 309 of 2009, O.P. No. 2 has examined her mother as P.W.1 and she has examined herself as P.W.2. Her mother has stated about harassment and torture of her daughter by her husband. She had deposed in the court that the petitioner is running a shop of electric items and earning Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per month from the shop and house. She has also stated about ancestral landed property of the petitioner and his father getting salary of Rs. 80,000/- per month. She has further stated that her grandson who is aged about 10 years is going to school for which monthly expenses would come around Rs. 5,000/- per month. O.P. No. 2 has also reiterated her stand taken in her application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has made allegation of harassment and torture by her husband and family members, earnings of her husband and the father-in-law. She has lodged a case under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. She has claimed that her husband is earning Rs. 20,000/- per month from money lending business and he has 20 bighas of ancestral land. 6. The witnesses examined by the petitioner have stated that he is working in a shop and getting salary of about Rs. 3,000/- per month and he has denied that he has monthly income of Rs. 40,000/- per month from a kirana shop and that he has ancestral house. He has tendered in evidence statement of O.P. No. 2 on the basis of which he has sought to contend that O.P. No. 2 has agreed to live in her matrimonial home and as such she is not entitled for maintenance. 7. The learned Family Court Judge has held as under : “15. After hearing, learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and I find from the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. Marriage of the petitioner no. 1 was solemnized with the O.P. through court and from their bedlock petitioner no. 2 was born. 7. The learned Family Court Judge has held as under : “15. After hearing, learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and I find from the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. Marriage of the petitioner no. 1 was solemnized with the O.P. through court and from their bedlock petitioner no. 2 was born. The evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner has stated about the income of the O.P. as discussed above though in the income of the O.P has stated by P.Ws have denied by the witnesses adduced on behalf of the O.P but from the documentary evidence filed by the petitioner and the evidence of O.P.W.2 who is the uncle of O.P it appears that O.P’s father has got 23 bigha land in different mouza and from the evidence of O.P.W.4 he is the main contesting party being husband of the petitioner no.1 has stated vide para-13 of his cross-examination that petitioner no. 2 is studying in St. Thomas School, Godda. As per the decision reported in AIR 2015 SC (Criminal) 1010 “The maintenance of wife cannot be defeated on pleas that husband does not have means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well-if husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under legal obligation to support his wife (para-15, 16).” Therefore, O.P. Mantu Jaiswal S/o- Surendra Jaiswal, R/o-Vill Mohanpur (Basuwa Maszid Road), PS-Mahagama, Distt-Godda is hereby directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- (Four thousand) per month each to the petitioner no. 1 Mamta Devi, W/o- Mantu Jaiswal and petitioner no. 2 Rajakarn Jaiswal, S/o- Mantu Jaiswal from this month and same will be paid by 30th of subsequent month. O.P. is also directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as a cost of litigation and same will be paid in 10 equal installment and same will be also paid by 30th of subsequent month. The maintenance petition filed by the petitioners u/s 125 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.” 8. The evidence laid by O.P. No. 2 is that her husband is a member of the joint family which owns a house and landed properties. Her evidence on the point of income is that her husband is earning Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 45,000/- per month and her father-in-law is getting salary of Rs. 80,000/- per month. The evidence laid by O.P. No. 2 is that her husband is a member of the joint family which owns a house and landed properties. Her evidence on the point of income is that her husband is earning Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 45,000/- per month and her father-in-law is getting salary of Rs. 80,000/- per month. The petitioner has failed to maintain his wife and the minor son and his wife has shown sufficient reasons not to live in his company. In view of the aforesaid facts and keeping in mind handicap of a wife to produce clinching evidence on income of her husband from business, in my opinion the order dated 30.07.2016 passed in Maintenance Case No. 309 of 2009 which runs into 18 pages and which is based on due consideration of the materials laid before the learned Family Court Judge does not warrant any interference in this revision petition. 9. Therefore, keeping in mind the limitation under the revisional jurisdiction [refer, “Deb Narayan Halder Vs. Anushree Halder (Smt)” reported in (2003) 11 SCC 303 ], I am not inclined to interfere in this matter and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 1097 of 2016 is dismissed.