JUDGMENT : Mr. Binit Chandra, the learned counsel appears for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, the learned counsel appears for O.P. No.2 and Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, the learned APP appears for the State. 2. The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 29.11.2016 passed in Maintenance Case No.79 of 2014. 3. The application under section 125 Cr.P.C filed by the wife of the petitioner was allowed and maintenance of Rs.4,000/-per month for her and Rs.2,000/-per month for the minor child were awarded; the applicants have claimed Rs.5,000/-per month for each of them. 4. The opposite party no.2 (hereinafter referred as applicant) was married to the petitioner on 11.05.2011 and from the wedlock applicant no.2 was born. She has claimed in her application for maintenance that her husband is running a kutti (straw) shop, owns 40-50 cows and buffaloes and engaged in dairy business from which he is earning Rs.3-4 Lacs per month. The petitioner has however denied her claim and stated that he is working as a daily wager in a cloth shop. In the proceeding of the maintenance case the parties have laid oral evidence; the wife of the petitioner has examined three witnesses and the petitioner has examined four witnesses. The learned Family Court Judge, on a consideration of the materials laid before him, has held as under : 9. “After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon considering the evidence available on record, I am satisfied to find and hold that admittedly the petitioner no.1 Nitu Kumari is the legally wedded wife of the opposite party Sunil Yadav and their marriage was solemnized on 11.05.2011 as per Hindu rites & customs. It is also admitted that out of their wedlock a daughter was born out, who is disabled from her birth. Admittedly the petitioner is not living with the opposite party-her husband in her matrimonial house since 17.06.2014. It has been alleged that the petitioner herself left the house of O.P. but nothing has been brought on record to show that in fact she had voluntarily left her matrimonial house. The opposite party has although averred in his show-cause that he is ready and willing to keep his wife and daughter with him but his conduct has exposed him. The opposite party has although averred in his show-cause that he is ready and willing to keep his wife and daughter with him but his conduct has exposed him. Several efforts were made for the amicable settlement of the matrimonial discord but it went in vain and therefore, the plea raised on behalf of the O.P. that he is ready to keep his wife and daughter with him is fallacious. Thus, it is crystal clear that the opposite party has refused and neglected to maintain the petitioner, his wife and children. In view of the provisions of law it is the moral and legal duty of the opposite party to fulfill his social obligation by providing for the maintenance of the petitioner-wife and the minor daughter. It can also be presumed that in the facts and circumstances of the case now there is no scope for restitution of their conjugal rights and therefore, the petitioners are held entitled for maintenance from the O.P. 10. So far the quantum of maintenance allowance is concerned, there is no any document to show that what is the vocation of the opposite party at present and what is the exact income therefrom. Similarly, there is no document to show that the O.P. owns a Khatal and a shop of Kutti (straw) from which he has substantial income as averred in the application. But from the oral evidence examined on behalf of the petitioner which remained unchallenged, it can be said that the opposite party has substantial income from the business of milk and also from cultivation. It has been admitted that the entire family of the O.P. is still joint and his family is engaged in the business of milk and thus, it can be safely inferred that he has substantial income from the said business. There is no concrete evidence to prove his contention that he is a labourer in a cloth shop and is earning only a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month therefrom. Whereas at present even an unskilled labourer earns a sum of Rs.300/-or more per day. There is no concrete evidence to prove his contention that he is a labourer in a cloth shop and is earning only a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month therefrom. Whereas at present even an unskilled labourer earns a sum of Rs.300/-or more per day. Apart from that nowadays it is almost well settled that “an able bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able to maintain his wife and child and he can not be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them.... It is for such able bodied person to show to the court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable to, due to reasons beyond control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child.....” Keeping in view the aforesaid settled principles of law and the discussions made above, it is amply clear that the opposite party is an able bodied person and has sufficient means to provide for the maintenance to the petitioner-wife as per the mandate of law. Be that as it may, the O.P. can not shirk his legal and moral responsibility to provide support by paying the maintenance amount to the petitioner-wife. In view of the provisions of law it is the moral and legal duty of the opposite party to fulfill his social obligation by providing for the maintenance of petitioner-wife and his child.” 5. 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. 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”. 6. The proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C is a summary proceeding and primarily civil in nature. In such a proceeding normally the strict rules of evidence are not applied by the Court and it is also true that a minute examination of the evidence is not permissible while exercising revisional jurisdiction [refer, Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 288]. 7. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles, I find that the order passed by the learned Family Court Judge does not warrant interference of this Court. The order of maintenance passed by the learned Family Court Judge is based on the materials produced before him and the view taken by him is in consonance with the law on the subject. 8. Section 125 Cr.P.C provides speedy remedy and serves a social purpose. On quantum of maintenance, what has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan” reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705 has to be kept in mind: 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. 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. 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.” 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court Judge for the wife and the minor child of the petitioner is not excessive and, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter. 10. Accordingly, Cr. Revision No.1603 of 2016 is dismissed.