JUDGMENT : The petitioner is aggrieved of the judgment dated 03.09.2016 passed in Original Maintenance Petition No.19 of 2013 by which he has been directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to his wife and Rs.1,000/- to his minor son. 2. The petitioner and his wife both are handicapped persons. They are getting Rs.600/- monthly allowance under a government scheme. The wife of the petitioner has alleged that her husband is running a grocery shop and he has substantial income from the landed properties. In the proceeding of maintenance case the wife of the petitioner has examined four witnesses and the petitioner has also examined five witnesses, in support of their case. The learned Family Court Judge has held that the petitioner has sufficient income while his wife has no income to sustain herself and therefore the petitioner is liable to maintain his wife. 3. Under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a wife, minor child and parents who are unable to maintain themselves are entitled for maintenance. The object behind section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to ensure that they do not suffer in destitution. The necessary conditions under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are that: (i) the husband has sufficient means still he has neglected to maintain his wife and/or minor child, and (ii) the wife is unable to maintain herself. In “Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal Vs. Veena Kaushal” reported in (1978) 4 SCC 70 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “9. This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfill. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social 4 relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advance the cause — the cause of the derelicts”. 4. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social 4 relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advance the cause — the cause of the derelicts”. 4. In paragraph no.33 of the judgment under challenge the learned Family Court Judge has recorded that considering the social and financial background of the parties, the paying capacity of the husband and the requirements to lead a comfortably reasonable life the husband is liable to pay Rs.2,000/-per month to his wife and Rs.1,000/-per month to his minor child for their monthly maintenance. In “Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan”, (2015) 5 SCC 705 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 14. “……….. It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that a woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands that there have to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. 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 CrPC, 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. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right.” 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and the position in law, as it stands today, and keeping in mind the limitations of the revisional jurisdiction [refer, “Deb Narayan Halder Vs. Anushree Halder (SMT)” reported in (2003) 11 SCC 303 ], I am not inclined to interfere in this matter and, accordingly, Cr. Revision No.1554 of 2016 is dismissed.