JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.06.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 153 of 2011 by which he has been directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to O.P. No. 2 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to O.P. No. 3 from the date of filing of the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Only point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that he has no income still the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur has awarded maintenance to O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. 3. Mr. S.K. Ughal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the order dated 29.06.2016 the learned Family Court Judge has recorded a finding that there is no concrete evidence on actual earnings of the petitioner and, therefore, the order dated 29.06.2016 suffers from material irregularity. 4. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 03.05.2008 at Jamshedpur and a son was born from the wedlock on 22.03.2010 at TELCO hospital, Jamshedpur. O.P. No. 2 who was the applicant in Misc. Case No. 153 of 2011 has made allegations of demand of dowry, harassment and torture by her husband and a case under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was filed by her. She has claimed that her husband is an electronic mechanic who earns Rs. 30,000/- per month. She has claimed Rs. 8,000/- per month each for herself and her son. The petitioner has opposed the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that his wife is living in adultery and O.P. No. 3 was born from her adulterous relationship with her unmarried uncle, namely, Sushil Kumar Mahato. He has also taken a plea that he does not have sufficient income to maintain his wife. 5. In the proceeding of Misc. Case No. 153 of 2011 both parties have laid oral evidence. O.P. No. 2 has admitted during her cross-examination that she was admitted in TELCO hospital, Jamshedpur on the medical-card of her uncle, namely, Sushil Kumar Mahato. She has stated that her husband is working but she has failed to disclose the name of the company and the place where her husband is working. The petitioner has examined himself as a witness and after he was cross-examined in part his further cross-examination was deferred, but thereafter he did not turn-up for the cross-examination. She has stated that her husband is working but she has failed to disclose the name of the company and the place where her husband is working. The petitioner has examined himself as a witness and after he was cross-examined in part his further cross-examination was deferred, but thereafter he did not turn-up for the cross-examination. The learned Family Court Judge has recorded that several adjournments were granted and cost of Rs. 1,500/- was also imposed, but he never turned-up for his further cross-examination and, accordingly, his evidence was closed. 6. The learned Family Court Judge has held as under: “So far the first allegation is concerned, there is no evidence in this regard and even as the opposite party did not turn up for cross-examination. His examination-in-chief is fit to be ignored. His evidence is of no consequence and hence this defence is ex-facie not maintainable. Marriage is admitted and status of the applicant to be the wife of the O.P. is not is dispute. Now coming to the question of quantum of maintenance. As there is no concrete evidence with regard to the actual earnings of the opposite party and though it is held by the court that since the O.P. is not suffering from any physical and mental disability and is also a technically qualified person, so he is capable of maintaining his wife and son and considering the facts of the present case and the material available on the record, this court consider it to be just and proper to award Rs. 5,000/- for both the applicants as maintenance. Rs. 3,000/- for the applicant no. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- for applicant no. 2, total amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month for both the applicants. This payment of maintenance shall be made from the date of failing of the case i.e. since July, 2011, the arrears from July, 2011 till June, 2016 shall be recovered by paying one month's maintenance from the arrears along with a month's current maintenance every month. Thus, O.P. shall pay Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant from the month from July, 2016 which shall include Rs. 5,000/- as current monthly maintenance and Rs. 5,000/- as arrears of maintenance. The arrears shall be paid till its realization. The monthly maintenance shall be payable by 15th of every succeeding month from the month of July, 2016.” 7. 10,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant from the month from July, 2016 which shall include Rs. 5,000/- as current monthly maintenance and Rs. 5,000/- as arrears of maintenance. The arrears shall be paid till its realization. The monthly maintenance shall be payable by 15th of every succeeding month from the month of July, 2016.” 7. 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 this beneficial provision is intended to ensure that the wife and the minor child do not suffer in destitution. 8. To substantiate his allegation of adultery the petitioner has not led any evidence. The learned Family Court Judge has recorded a finding that there is no proof of actual earning of the petitioner. But then, in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the burden is on husband to lead evidence to show that he does not have sufficient income to maintain his wife and the minor child [Refer Rajathi vs. C. Ganesan, (1999) 6 SCC 326 ]. The wife of the petitioner has laid evidence on demand of dowry and harassment and torture and, therefore, she has just excuse not to live in the company of her husband. She has also asserted that her husband has failed to maintain her and the minor child and this stand has not been controverted by the petitioner. O.P. No. 2 is the legally married wife of the petitioner and the marriage is still subsisting and, therefore, the petitioner is liable to maintain her. On quantum of maintenance all that is needed to be recorded is that the amount of maintenance is governed by status of the husband and the living standards which the wife would have been enjoying in the company of her husband. The learned Family Court Judge has observed that the opposite party is not suffering from any physical and mental disability and he is technically qualified also. In these facts, award of Rs. 5,000/- as monthly maintenance allowance to his wife and son is not excessive rather it is reasonable. 9. The order dated 29.06.2016 in Misc. The learned Family Court Judge has observed that the opposite party is not suffering from any physical and mental disability and he is technically qualified also. In these facts, award of Rs. 5,000/- as monthly maintenance allowance to his wife and son is not excessive rather it is reasonable. 9. The order dated 29.06.2016 in Misc. Case No. 153 of 2011 has been passed on due consideration of the materials laid before the learned Family Court Judge and, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 1091 of 2016 is dismissed. 10. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned through “Fax.”