JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.09.2016 passed in Maintenance Case No. 158 of 2013 by which he has been directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month each to his wife and the minor son. 2. Md. Zaid Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that evidence of the witnesses examined by the applicant was not consistent on income of the petitioner and contrary to their testimony the learned Family Court Judge has assessed monthly income of the petitioner at Rs. 45,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. 3. Marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with Dolly Dutta (hereinafter referred to as applicant) on 02.03.2010 and from the wedlock a son was born. In the proceeding of maintenance case the applicant has examined three witnesses and the opposite party-husband has examined five witnesses. The applicant has alleged that about two months after the marriage her husband and his family members started harassing her in connection to demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- and a gold chain. Finally, on 28.08.2011 she was ousted from her matrimonial home and thereafter her husband has neglected to maintain her and the minor son. She has claimed that she has no source of income and she is residing with her father. Her husband is a businessman who earns Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- per month and his agricultural income is about Rs. 50,000/- per year. 4. The proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is summary in nature and the strict compliance of the rules of evidence are not insisted upon by the courts. C.P. Case No. 1220 of 2013 was instituted by the petitioner’s wife who has narrated various incidents of her harassment and torture at the hands of her husband and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner’s wife has sufficient reasons not to live in his company. Her stand that she does not have any independent source of income is sought to be controverted by taking a stand that she is working as a beautician. In the context of income of the applicant this must bear in mind that some income of a wife is not a ground to deny maintenance to her and unless disqualified her right for maintenance is absolute. 5. In the context of income of the applicant this must bear in mind that some income of a wife is not a ground to deny maintenance to her and unless disqualified her right for maintenance is absolute. 5. In Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan, (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.” 6. The assessment of quantum of maintenance by the learned Family Court Judge in my opinion is based on due consideration of the materials laid before him and, therefore, this aspect of the matter which is a finding of fact recorded by the learned Family Court Judge does not warrant interference of this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 7. In the above view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 1512 of 2016 is dismissed.