JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.06.2016 passed in Maintenance Petition No. 11 of 2015 by which he has been directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to his wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the minor daughter. 2. Under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a husband, who has sufficient means, 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. 3. In Kirtikant D. Vadodaria vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 4 SCC 479 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the object behind section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thus: “15. The point in controversy before us however is whether a ‘stepmother’ can claim maintenance from the stepson or not, having regard to the aims and objects of Section 125 of the Code. While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation. Having regard to this special object the provisions of Section 125 of the Code have to be given a liberal construction to fulfil and achieve this intention of the legislature.” 4. In the proceeding of Maintenance Petition No. 11 of 2015, the wife of the petitioner has examined herself as a witness. She has alleged adulterous relationship of her husband with her elder sister-in-law. In the proceeding of Maintenance Petition No. 11 of 2015, the wife of the petitioner has examined herself as a witness. She has alleged adulterous relationship of her husband with her elder sister-in-law. She has stated that she has lodged a case against her husband alleging torture and demand of dowry by him. Her husband is a Para Teacher and he has income from landed properties. The petitioner has denied the allegations levelled against him by his wife and has examined three witnesses to resist the claim of maintenance by his wife. He has stated that his salary is Rs. 6,800/- per month. The witnesses examined by him have also stated about his landed property. The learned Family Court Judge has recorded a finding that the petitioner's wife has reasonable excuses not to live in his company and he has neglected to maintain his wife. The learned Judge has held as under: “14. Sufficient means to pay the maintenance: The petitioner could not produce any document regarding the income of the O.P. She has stated that the O.P. works as a Para Teacher and in addition to it he has three Acres of landed property. He has also taken four acres of agricultural land on lease for cultivation and from all the sources he earns at least Rs. 40 thousand per month. She has also stated that the O.P. has deposited Rs. 8 lacs in his saving bank account but in support of her statement she did not bring any related documents before the court. The xerox copy of C.C. of R.S. Khatiyan and Bank Passbook has been filed on behalf of the O.P. The Bank Passbook shows the last balance amount i.e. Rs. 57,455/- as on 06.08.2015. From the above discussion, I am of considered opinion that the O.P. being a young healthy person of the age of 30 years can not shirk his responsibilities in maintaining his wife and his child.” 5. The stand of the petitioner's wife that she does not have sufficient means to maintain herself has not been controverted by the petitioner, whereas it has been brought on record that he has sufficient means. He has however neglected to maintain his wife and the minor daughter and, therefore, he is liable to pay maintenance allowance to them. The above being the factual scenario, I am of the opinion that grant of maintenance of Rs. He has however neglected to maintain his wife and the minor daughter and, therefore, he is liable to pay maintenance allowance to them. The above being the factual scenario, I am of the opinion that grant of maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month for the petitioner's wife and Rs. 1,000/- for his minor daughter is not excessive. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter and, accordingly, Cr. Rev. No. 1243 of 2016 is dismissed.