JUDGMENT : The petitioner who is the applicant in Maintenance Case No. 189 of 2011 has challenged legality of the quantum of maintenance fixed by the order dated 27.08.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Giridih. By this order her husband has been directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance allowance for her. 2. The applicant was married to the opposite party on 09.06.2009 and from the wedlock a girl child was born on 04.12.2010. The applicant has alleged that about 2 months after the marriage her husband and his family members started harassing her. On the occasion of Durga Puja she was brutally assaulted by her husband and no one from the family took her for treatment. She informed her parents who got her admitted at Parvati Clinic and thereafter she was referred to Dhanbad for further treatment. When she became pregnant her husband started pressurizing her to abort the pregnancy and when she refused he tortured her in connection to demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- and one motorcycle. Finally she was thrown out from her matrimonial home and thereafter her husband has failed to maintain her and the minor daughter. She has claimed that her husband is earning Rs. 35,000/- per month by running a betel shop and he has additional annual income of Rs. 50,000/- from agriculture. 3. The opposite party did not file his reply and accordingly he was debarred from filing his show cause vide order dated 16.11.2011. But, he has laid oral as well as documentary evidence. The applicant has examined herself as P.W 1 and her mother was examined as P.W 2. The mother of the applicant has deposed about harassment and torture inflicted by the opposite party upon her daughter and his failure to maintain his wife and the minor daughter. In the court the applicant has reiterated the allegations levelled by her against the opposite party and stated that she is staying at her parental home and has no independent source of income to maintain herself and the minor daughter. The opposite party has also examined five witnesses, however, the learned Family Court Judge referring to the judgment in “Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by LRs. Vs. The opposite party has also examined five witnesses, however, the learned Family Court Judge referring to the judgment in “Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College” reported in (1987) 2 SCC 555 did not consider the evidences laid by him which were beyond the pleadings and, rightly so, he has looked into only the admitted facts. 4. On the basis of the materials laid before him the Family Court Judge has held that the applicant is entitled for maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month. 5. The learned Family Court Judge has held, thus: “9. Heard the ld. Counsels for the both sides and perused the case record. From perusal of records, it transpires that, admittedly the petitioner and the O.P. are wife and husband and their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and rituals on 09.06.2009. It is the petitioner’s case that, she was pressurized to abort her foetus and upon her refusal she was demanded additional dowry and refusal to fulfill the said demand, resulted in infliction of cruelty upon her and ultimately, she was ousted from her matrimonial house. Admittedly, there are several cases pending between the contesting parties herein. As such, the petitioner has sufficient reasons to reside separately from her husband, the O.P. herein. 10. As admittedly, the petitioner is the wife of the O.P., it is the duty of the O.P. to maintain her, if not otherwise prohibited under the law. As held above, the petitioner has sufficient reasons to reside separately from her husband, the O.P. herein. As such the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance form the O.P. 11. Now coming to the quantum of maintenance. I find that the petitioner has not proved the income of the O.P., by any cogent and/or documentary evidence. Nevertheless, in my view, the O.P. may at least be taken to be an Unskilled workman. As per the Jharkhand Minimum Wages Act, the minimum monthly wage o an Unskilled workman is Rs. 6,550/-.” 6. I find that the petitioner has not proved the income of the O.P., by any cogent and/or documentary evidence. Nevertheless, in my view, the O.P. may at least be taken to be an Unskilled workman. As per the Jharkhand Minimum Wages Act, the minimum monthly wage o an Unskilled workman is Rs. 6,550/-.” 6. The learned Family Court Judge has decided the amount of maintenance on the basis of the wages fixed for the unskilled workmen under the Jharkhand Minimum Wages Act and I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the applicant (petitioner herein) that the quantum of maintenance for the wife should have been 50% of the assessed income of the husband but on that count I am not inclined to interfere in this matter for the reason that the opposite party is liable to maintain his minor daughter also. 7. This criminal revision was filed on 28.11.2016 and notice was issued to the opposite party on 30.01.2017. The records would reveal that the opposite party has entered his appearance through his counsel on 16.03.2017, but he has not filed his reply in the present proceeding. On the previous date of hearing, that is, on 28.02.2020 no one has appeared for the opposite party and today also no one appears for the opposite party, though name of the learned counsel for the opposite party has been shown in the cause list on both dates. In fact, on 14.02.2020 also the learned counsel for the opposite party did not appear and mistakenly the learned A.P.P. who also carries the same name had appeared. Under these circumstances this revision petition is decided in absence of the learned counsel for the opposite party. 8. Under section 125 Cr.P.C., a husband who has sufficient means if neglects or refuses to maintain his wife or the minor child is liable to suffer an order for their maintenance. The essential pre-conditions for awarding maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. are that the husband has sufficient means to maintain his wife and the child and the wife is unable to maintain herself. The stand taken by the applicant that she does not have sufficient income to maintain herself has not been controverted by the opposite party. The essential pre-conditions for awarding maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. are that the husband has sufficient means to maintain his wife and the child and the wife is unable to maintain herself. The stand taken by the applicant that she does not have sufficient income to maintain herself has not been controverted by the opposite party. Though the learned Family Court Judge has held that the applicant has failed to establish income of the husband, the fact remains that the opposite party has also failed to show that he does not have sufficient means to maintain his wife and the minor child [refer, “Rajathi v. C. Ganesan” reported in (1999) 6 SCC 326 ]. He has failed to ensure that his wife and the minor child do not suffer in destitution. 9. The proceeding in Maintenance Case No. 189 of 2011 would disclose that by the time, the applicant filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. a girl child was born from the wedlock. 10. Mr. Zaid Ahmad, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no specific prayer for maintenance of the minor daughter but in view of the facts brought on record the learned Family Court Judge should have awarded maintenance for the minor daughter also. 11. Generally, the matter is remanded to the Family Court or the applicant is granted a liberty for moving an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for the minor daughter but keeping in mind that about 9 years have passed when the application under section 125 Cr.P.C was filed by the applicant, I am inclined to hold that an equal amount of maintenance as has been granted to the applicant shall also be paid by the opposite party to the minor daughter. 12. Criminal Revision No. 1536 of 2016 stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms. 13. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the court below.