JUDGMENT : In course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any illegality in the order dated 09.08.2016. The order dated 09.08.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 103 of 2007/Maintenance Case No. 186 of 2009 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to his wife and Rs. 5,000/- each to both his minor daughters runs into 46 pages and volume of this order is not without any reason. It reflects proper application of mind by the learned Family Court Judge to the materials laid before him. He has minutely examined each and every aspects of the matter and upon due consideration of the evidences led by the parties he has granted maintenance to the wife and minor daughters of the petitioner. The learned Family Court Judge has held thus: “18. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record, I find that it is admitted case of both the parties that petitioner no. 1 is the legally married wife of the O.P and from their bedlock petitioner no. 2 Siwani Kumari born. The case of the petitioner no. 1 that petitioner no. 2 Geeta Kumari also born with the bedlock of the O.P but O.P. had denied the same saying that when the petitioner no. 1 went from his house in the year, 2006 then Geeta Kumari (OP 3) born but I find from the show-cause filed on behalf of the O.P on 13.06.08 in which vide para-9 he has stated that “the petitioner no. 1 is peevish and obstinate lady and she is spoiling the carrier of petitioner no. 2 and 3 and for well being of petitioner no. 2 and 3 this O.P has filed a guardianship case no. 01/07 in the month of Oct. 2007 mentioning therein interalia that this O.P is the father and legal guardian of his minor daughters Shiwani Kumari and Geeta Kumari and so this O.P may be permitted to keep.” O.P. also in his rejoinder dt. 09.05.08 filed with respect to the petition for the interim maintenance filed by the petitioner no. 1 and he has stated vide para-7 that “O.P. is still ready to keep his wife petitioner no. 1 and her daughter petitioner no. 09.05.08 filed with respect to the petition for the interim maintenance filed by the petitioner no. 1 and he has stated vide para-7 that “O.P. is still ready to keep his wife petitioner no. 1 and her daughter petitioner no. 2 and 3 with all dignity and honour and with love and affection.’ and on the basis of show-cause and rejoinder filed by the O.P. vide order dt. 24.06.08 this court has found that no allegation of characterless of the petitioner no. 1 by the O.P and petitioner no. 1 and her two minor children are entitled for the interim maintenance and O.P was directed to pay Rs. 1000/- per month to the petitioner no. 1 and Rs. 500/- per month to the each petitioner i.e. petitioner no. 2 and 3. From the documents which is marked “X” for identification which is plaint of guardianship case no. 03/07 in which the O.P Subash Thakur has prayed to appoint him guardian of Siwani Kumari and Puja Kumari and prayed to handover them from the guardianship of petitioner no. 1 Pramila Devi. He in plaint para-3 has stated that in 1997 a daughter born namely Siwani Kumari, who is unmarried and with the O.P. He also stated vide para-12 that in between a child born named Puja Kumari who is now aged about more that 9 years. From which it proves that petitioner no. 2 Puja Kumari @ Geeta Kumari is also the daughter of O.P Subhash Thakur. From the evidence of both the parties it is clear that two cases has already been compromised between the parties but again a case u/s 498A of the IPC was filed by the petitioner no. 1 against O.P Subash Thakur and others. It is also alleged by the petitioner no. 1 that O.P Subhash Thakur has got illicit relation with elder brother’s wife Anju Devi and therefore he is torturing her and she is also made an accused with Subash Thakur in the case filed by the petitioner no. 1. From Ext. 2 it appears that in the voter list of vill-Belatikar, Anju Devi’s husband name is written as Subash Thakur and Subash Thakur’s father name is Ram Dhani Thakur and in Ext. 1. From Ext. 2 it appears that in the voter list of vill-Belatikar, Anju Devi’s husband name is written as Subash Thakur and Subash Thakur’s father name is Ram Dhani Thakur and in Ext. 3 are the voter list of vill.Malmandro father’s name of Subash Thakur is Ram Dhani Thakur, this documents shows that O.P keep the Anju Devi as a wife, who is his elder brother’s wife. Previously at present widow and therefore both of them were made an accused by petitioner no. 1 case filed by her u/s 498A of IPC and the documents from Ext. 4 to 14 filed by the petitioner support the same and the documents which are marked as ‘i’ to ‘iv’ for identification filed by her also support the same. It is admitted case of the parties that O.P Subash Thakur is a assistant teacher in middle school and at present he is getting total salary of Rs. 44,361 and after deduction he is getting of Rs. 33,231/- . Vide Ext. L and M, it appears that housing loan of Rs. 11,200/- also deducted from his salary but from the pay-slip it appears that intentionally he is deposing of Rs. 9000/- in PPF that can be reduce by him for the maintenance of petitioners and his two daughters who are petitioner no. 2 and 3 are studying in St. Francis School, Poraiyahat, Distt. Godda. As per the decision reported in AIR 2015 SC (Criminal) 1010 it is held in the judgment vide para-14 that she is entitled to lead a life in similar manner as she would have lived in house of her husband. Therefore, considering the evidence available on record O.P. Subash Thakur, S/o- Late Ramdhani Thakur, R/o- Vill Bhelatikar, Post Malmandro., PS Thakurgangti, Distt-Godda is hereby directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the each petitioner i.e. petitioner no. 1 Pramila Devi, W/o- Subash Thakur Petitioenr no. 2 Siwani Kumari, P.W.3 Geeta Kumari @ Puja Kumari from this month and same will be paid by 5th of the subsequent month. The maintenance amount of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 will be paid to the petitioner no. 1 till the attending their age of majority and thereafter maintenance amount will be paid to the petitioner no. 2 and 3. Accordingly maintenance petition filed on behalf of the petitioners is hereby allowed.” 2. The maintenance amount of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 will be paid to the petitioner no. 1 till the attending their age of majority and thereafter maintenance amount will be paid to the petitioner no. 2 and 3. Accordingly maintenance petition filed on behalf of the petitioners is hereby allowed.” 2. The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with O.P. No. 2 in the year, 1994 and from the wedlock two daughters were born. Alleging her harassment and torture at the hands of her husband the petitioner’s wife has instituted Thakur Gangti P.S. Case No. 48 of 2007 under sections 341, 323, 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. She has also alleged that her husband has elicit relationship with her elder sister-in-law. 3. The petitioner has denied the allegation levelled against him by his wife and stated that he is ready to keep his wife and the minor daughters. In the proceeding of the maintenance case the wife of the petitioner has examined three witnesses; one of witnesses is her daughter. During cross-examination of her witnesses nothing material can be elicited from them and they have remained unshaken on the point of harassment and torture of O.P. No. 2, salary of the petitioner and failure of the petitioner to maintain his wife and the minor daughters. The petitioner has examined six witnesses to avoid the claim of maintenance by his wife and the minor daughters. But, his witnesses have mainly spoken about income of his wife about Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- per month. 4. In “Sunita Kachwaha and Ors. Vs. Anil Kuchwaha” reported in 2014 (16) SCC 715 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that minute details of matrimonial disputes between the husband and wife need not be gone into and it is not necessary for the court to ascertain as to who was wrong. Under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a husband who has sufficient means 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 the minor child do not suffer in destitution. 5. The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in a primary school at Kajrail and his salary was more than Rs. 44,000/- and after deduction of Rs. 5. The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in a primary school at Kajrail and his salary was more than Rs. 44,000/- and after deduction of Rs. 11,200/- from his salary on account of the housing loan he would be receiving Rs. 30,000/- per month. In my opinion, the amount of maintenance granted by the learned Family Court Judge is not excessive rather it is proper and necessary for the opposite parties to modestly maintain themselves. 6. In “Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan” reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “14.……. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of section 125 Cr.P.C, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under section 125 Cr.P.C can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife’s right to receive maintenance under section 125 Cr.PC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right”. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 1296 of 2016 is dismissed.