JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.06.2016 passed in Maintenance Case No. 21 of 2014 by which he has been directed to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month to his wife. 2. The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with O.P. No. 2 on 11.06.1986 and from the wedlock two sons and one daughter were born. The petitioner's wife has alleged that he was demanding Rs. 50,000/- as dowry and in drunken condition he was assaulting her. On 02.10.2010 he has broken her wrist and fingers and, therefore, she has left his company with her children. She has stated that she is living in destitution and somehow living by working as maid servant. She has alleged that her husband is working under Prem Industries, Chas on a monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month and he is getting Rs. 3,000/- per month from the rickshaw-pullers who are plying his rickshaw. The petitioner has alleged that his wife was taking intoxicating thing since 1998 and she used to spend his whole income on satisfying her needs for drugs and liquor. 3. In the proceeding of the maintenance case, the petitioner has examined his children who have stated that their mother was taking drugs ¼u'kk djrh gSA½ They have deposed that their father was driving a carriage van. The witnesses examined by the petitioner's wife have spoken about harassment and torture of his wife by the petitioner and his income. 4. The marriage of the petitioner with O.P. No. 2 was solemnized in the year 1986 and he filed a suit for divorce in the year 2011. In the proceeding of M.T.S. No. 45/2011, an order of interim maintenance for the petitioner's wife was passed by the court. He has subsequently withdrawn the suit and his wife has alleged that he has threatened the children who have thereafter started living with him. On the allegation that his wife was addicted the petitioner has not led any independent evidence. His children have also made a bald allegation about addiction of their mother. From the materials on record, I find that the wife of the petitioner has laid sufficient evidence to claim maintenance from her husband. Under the socio-cultural milieu in India a wife would not leave her marital home after about twenty-five years of marriage on her own. His children have also made a bald allegation about addiction of their mother. From the materials on record, I find that the wife of the petitioner has laid sufficient evidence to claim maintenance from her husband. Under the socio-cultural milieu in India a wife would not leave her marital home after about twenty-five years of marriage on her own. I further find that the petitioner has failed to discharge his burden under section 125 Cr.P.C. by showing that he does not have sufficient means to maintain his wife [Rajathi vs. C. Ganesan, (1999) 6 SCC 326 ]. 5. Under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a husband, who has sufficient income, if fails to maintain his wife and children, is liable to incur an order for maintenance. It is also well-settled that the proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is summary in nature and the object behind section 125 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that a wife or minor children do not live in penury. 6. In Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “6. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The phrase “unable to maintain herself” in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal vs. Veena Kaushal falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat.” 7. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat.” 7. In view of the above discussions, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter and, accordingly, Cr. Rev. No. 1248 of 2016 is dismissed.