ORDER : The wife and the minor daughter have filed this criminal revision petition against the judgment dated 29.04.2015 passed in Maintenance Case No. 68 of 2011, questioning the proprietary of awarding Rs. 1000/- per month as monthly allowance to them for their maintenance. 2. In her application filed under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant no.1 who is wife of the opposite party has claimed maintenance of Rs.10000/- per month. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 11.06.2007 and the first child unfortunately could not survive - the second child born from the wedlock is the applicant no.2. The applicant no.1 has alleged that at the time of the marriage whatever was given to her was retained by the opposite party and his family members when she was ousted from her matrimonial home on 22.08.2011. She was put to harassment and torture in connection to demand of dowry, sometimes her husband locked her in a room and not provided even food. There are various other allegations made by her in her application which are not really necessary to be recorded here. What is important to notice is that the applicant no. 1 has stated that she has no independent source of income and her husband who has landed properties, tractor and tank has failed to maintain her and her minor daughter. His father is a small businessman and he himself earns about Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.2.5 lakhs per annum by growing crops and doing small contracts. The opposite party appeared in the proceeding or maintenance case and filed his show-cause reply controverting the allegations of his wife. He has gone further and levellcd allegations against his wife of having developing relationship with a boy named Rashid Ansari. He has further alleged that on 25.06.2011 Rashid Ansari committed rape upon his wife and a First Information Report vide Barhait P.S Case No.55 of 2011 was lodged under section 376 or the Indian Penal Code and in that case Rashid Ansari was sent to judicial custody. In this background the opposite party has stated that his wife left home with the minor daughter taking away all her belongings. 3. During the trial both parties have examined 4 witnesses each in support of their case. Besides herself, the applicant no. In this background the opposite party has stated that his wife left home with the minor daughter taking away all her belongings. 3. During the trial both parties have examined 4 witnesses each in support of their case. Besides herself, the applicant no. 1 has examined her father, her brother and a distant relative who have deposed in the Court that the opposite party and his family members have driven out the applicants from home and the opposite party was not financially supporting his wife and the minor child. The father of the applicant no. 1 has stated about income of the opposite party from tank and fishing; over 15 bighas of land he grows 500 mounds grams and 200 mounds paddy besides 100 mounds wheat. The applicant no. 1 has reiterated her stand taken in her application under section 125 or the Code of Criminal Procedure and denied that she earns Rs.3000/- to Rs.4000/- per month herself. AW3 has however failed to give details of the land and other properties possessed by the opposite party and the brother of applicant no. 1 has denied the suggestion about khula talaq to her. The opposite party who has examined himself as OPW 1 has supported his stand by saying that in Complaint Case No. 467 of 2011 his wife has admitted that she has given khula talaq. He admits that he was sent to judicial custody in connection to criminal case filed by his wife under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. OPW2 has admitted that the opposite party owns a tractor and there were frequent quarrels between the opposite party and his wife. OPW3 has stated that the opposite party was working as helper with a Mason and he has never seen the applicant no. 1 having any interaction with Rashid Ansari. He has stated that the opposite party has landed property which was less than 2 bighas of land but he does not possess a tank. OPW4 has denied that the opposite party owns 15 bighas or land, tank or a tractor. Various documents were produced by the parties during the trial and on a detailed discussion thereof the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has held as under : 20. So far as claim of the applicant no.2 Safia is concerned, it is no where denied that opposite party is not her father. Various documents were produced by the parties during the trial and on a detailed discussion thereof the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has held as under : 20. So far as claim of the applicant no.2 Safia is concerned, it is no where denied that opposite party is not her father. She has nothing to do with the dispute between the applicant no. 1 and her husband. She is a minor girl. She has no source of income and obviously her mother has got no source of income to maintain. She is very much entitled for maintenance from her father. 21. In the circumstances, I come to this conclusion that certainly applicant no.1 had illicit relationship with Rashid Ansari whom she helped in her is acquittal in that rape case. But there is no evidence on the record that she is continuously living in adultery. Adultery means continuous adulterous conduct. The single lapse from the virtue will not suffice. Adullery is something from unchaste life. Adulterous conduct indicates where wife lives in a quasi-permanent union with whom she commits adultery. In this case there is no evidence on the record that applicant no. 1 lives in quasi-permanent union with Rashid Ansari. As stated above, adultery is something different from unchaste conduct. Hence I feel that despite all these things stated above, applicant no.1 is also entitled for maintenance from the opposite party 22. Now the question arises what should be the quantum. It is said that opposite party has got 15 bighas lands upon which he grows crops. It is also said that he has a tractor and a tank. It is further said that he is a contractor also and his annual income is Rs. 2.5 lacs per annum. From perusal of documentary evidence produced by the opposite party, it is crystal clear that the tractor is in question does not belong to him rather his brother is owner of this tractor and his brother lives separately from him. Regarding tank no cogent evidence has been brought on the record by the applicants. Of course some of the witnesses of the opposite party has admitted that he has a tank also but some other witnesses have denied it. Regarding tank no cogent evidence has been brought on the record by the applicants. Of course some of the witnesses of the opposite party has admitted that he has a tank also but some other witnesses have denied it. Perusal of xerox copy of income certificate issued by the Circle Office, Barhait and xerox copy of job Card issued under MANREGA Scheme clearly indicates that income of opposite party is Rs.30000/- per year. There is no evidence on the record that opposite party has landed property because witnesses have failed to state the description of land allegedly possessed by him. Hence it can be inferred that annual income of the opposite party must be Rs.30000/- per annum. It means that monthly income is Rs.2500/- only. As such, in this amount the quantum of maintenance will be considered and allowed. It is therefore, ORDERED that opposite party will give Rs.1000/- per month to the applicants as maintenance from the date of institution this case. Monthly maintenance will be paid by 10th calendar day of succeeding month and arrear competent will be cleared by him within six months from the date of this order. 4. A wife becomes entitled for maintenance from the date of her marriage and her entitlement for maintenance continues even after divorce till she gets re-married (Explanation (b) to sub-Section 1 to section 125 of the Code Criminal Procedure). The object behind section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to ensure that a wife, minor children and old parents do not suffer in destitution. In “Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal” (1978) 4 SCC 70 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed 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 statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfill. The brooding presence of the constellational empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation it has to have social 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." 5. The brooding presence of the constellational empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation it has to have social 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." 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that there was no material produced by the applicant no. 1 in the proceeding of the maintenance case to substantiate her claim that her husband has other incomes, on the contrary the opposite party has produced his income certificate which has been duly taken note of by the learned Family Court Judge and on that basis he has fixed the amount of maintenance. 6. The powers or revisional Court to interfere with a finding of fact recorded by the Court below is very limited and only in exceptional cases the revisional Court would interfere if the findings recorded by the Court below are found contrary to the records and perverse, or, the approach or the Court below was contrary to the settled rules or law. In "Sheonandan Paswan v. Siate of Bihar" (1987) 1 SCC 288 a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in revisional jurisdiction the Court should not embark upon a minute examination of the evidence. 7. In the background of the limitations on revisional jurisdiction as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, when the judgment dated 29.04.2015 passed in Maintenance Case No.68 of 2011 is examined I find that the learned Family Court Judge has overlooked the nature of the proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereby arrived at a wrong conclusion that the applicant no. 1 has failed to produce materials to establish that her husband has landed and other properties. The proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is primarily civil in nature is a summary proceeding and as applicable in other summary proceedings the strict rules of evidence are not applied by the Courts in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant no. 1 and her father have stated in the Court that the opposite party has landed properties and a tank and he has earnings from the aforesaid properties. The applicant no. 1 and her father have stated in the Court that the opposite party has landed properties and a tank and he has earnings from the aforesaid properties. The evidence of OPW2 and OPW4 on a tractor possessed by the opposite party is contradictory, and OPW3 has admitted that the opposite party has landed properties may be not 20 acres of land. A wife is not expected to lead documentary evidence which would be not available to her to establish that her husband owns landed properties. To controvert the claim of his wife, the opposite party then should have laid some evidence in the form of a document or by examining a revenue authority which he has not done, and in support of his claim none of his family members has decided to come to the Court to refute the allegations of the applicant no. 1 that he possesses landed and other properties. In a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a wife is not required to establish that she is living a life of destitute, rather it is for the husband to show that he is unable to maintain his wife and the minor child [refer, "Rajathi v. C. Ganesan" (1999) 6 SCC 326 ]. 8. From the reading of the judgment dated 29.04.2015, it is quite apparent that approach of the learned Family Court Judge was contrary to the establishcd rules of law and by insisting upon the applicant no.1 to produce clinching evidence, he has erroneously shifted the onus on her, which is not a requirement in a civil case and, that too, of the nature or a summary proceeding. 9. On the quantum or maintenance, all I intend to record is that it is surprising that the learned Family Court Judge has found that Rs.1 000/- per month would be sufficient for a wife to maintain herself and her minor daughter. The opposite party is definitely entitled to live a respectable life but he cannot say that he then would leave his wife and the minor child in penury and would not maintain them in the garb of a plea of his meager income. In "Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan" (2015) 5 SCC 705 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 14. In "Shamima Farooqui v. 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 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 10 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.” 10. In view or the aforesaid discussions and finding serious infirmity in the judgment dated 29.04.2015, on the question of quantum of maintenance the judgment dated 29.04.2015 is set-aside. In view or the aforesaid discussions and finding serious infirmity in the judgment dated 29.04.2015, on the question of quantum of maintenance the judgment dated 29.04.2015 is set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Family Court Judge for deciding quantum of maintenance on the basis of the materials already on record. Both parties shall appear before the Court below on 22.03.2021 and on that day the learned Family Court Judge shall fix the date for final hearing. The parties shall be permitted to file affidavit on subsequent development, if any, and the learned Family Court Judge shall take due note of any subsequent development. It is expected that keeping in mind the object behind section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Judge would deliver judgment within next three months. 11. Criminal Revision No.563 of 2016 is allowed to the extent, in the aforesaid terms. 12. I.A No. 2940 of 2016 stands disposed of. 13. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned through 'Fax'.