ORDER : The revision on hand is filed against an order passed by Family Court, Kasaragod on 24.06.2019 in M.C.No.23 of 2016. M.C. was filed by the respondents before the Family Court under Section 127 (1) of Cr.P.C. seeking for enhancement of the sum ordered originally by the Family Court as monthly maintenance in M.C.No.5 of 2005. In M.C. No.5 of 2005 the Family Court has fixed Rs.1,000/-per month as monthly maintenance payable to the 2nd respondent from 19.12.2002 onwards and declined the claim of the 1st respondent for monthly maintenance. Therefore, revision was filed by the 1st respondent as R.P.(FC) No. 293 of 2007 before this Court and this Court has modified the order by awarding Rs.1,000/-also as monthly maintenance payable to herself. M.C. No.23 of 2016 was filed by the respondents under Section 127 (1) Cr.P.C. seeking for modification of the maintenance amount stands awarded by the Family Court in the original M.C. Though maintenance stands ordered at the rate of Rs.1,000/-to each of the respondents, the revision petitioner defaulted payment after sometime. 2. In the counter statement filed in the M.C., the contention mainly taken by the revision petitioner was that he was physically handicapped in view of amputation of his right leg after meeting with an accident and that the eldest children being employed and financially affluent are maintaining the respondents. According to him, he is devoid of any means of livelihood and therefore, is not liable to pay maintenance to the respondents. The parties to the revision on hand will be referred to hereinafter as the respondent and petitioners in accordance with their status in the M.C., for clarity. 3. It was proved before the Family Court by the petitioners that the respondent is remarried. The contention taken by the respondent that he does not have means and therefore is not liable to pay maintenance to the petitioners, cannot be accepted for the sole reason that he got married secondly and begotten children in that wedlock. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent is now maintained by the son of the second wife born in her first marriage with another man is unbelievable for want of any evidence to establish the latter's employment, financial capacity and residence together. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent is now maintained by the son of the second wife born in her first marriage with another man is unbelievable for want of any evidence to establish the latter's employment, financial capacity and residence together. Through Exts.P11 to P16 it is well established that the 1st petitioner is suffering from cancer and is undergoing treatment for that. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has advanced an argument that the elder children being employed and financially stable, petitioners are well maintained by them and therefore the respondent need not pay any amount for their maintenance is untenable for the reason firstly that evidence is not adduced to fortify the contention taken by the respondent in that regard. Evenif, the respondent succeeds in establishing that, it cannot be taken to have the impact of exonerating the respondent from his statutory liability envisaged under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is well said in the provision that a neglected wife unable to maintain herself is entitled to get monthly maintenance from her husband for her sustenance. Similarly a legitimate or illegitimate neglected minor child is also entitled to get maintenance from his/her father as the case may be. The legislature has recognised that legitimate right and incorporated it as Section 125 Cr.P.C with the sole purpose to prevent destitution and vagrancy. Or in otherwords, incorporation of Section 125 in the Code is to remind a husband, father or son, as the case may be, that evasion or neglect of their near ones for no valid and justifiable reasons will be met with the legal consequences of paying a just and reasonable sum of maintenance as fixed by the court. The valid and justifiable reasons which exonerate the husband from paying maintenance in the case of a wife are also well incorporated in the provision. 5. The Muslim Personal Law is self contained of the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife by providing her with food, clothing and lodging. In the Code a legal recognition is given to the right of a deserted wife, son/daughter, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves. Or in otherwords a man is obliged under the Code to see that his wife, son/daughter or parents neglected by him and unable to maintain themselves, are reasonably maintained. In the Code a legal recognition is given to the right of a deserted wife, son/daughter, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves. Or in otherwords a man is obliged under the Code to see that his wife, son/daughter or parents neglected by him and unable to maintain themselves, are reasonably maintained. Section 125 Cr.P.C is apposite to be extracted hereunder: “Section 125 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain- (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means: Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person. Explanation.-For the purposes of this Chapter,- (a) “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875); is deemed not to have attained his majority. (b) “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not re-married. (2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, (3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the each month’s allowances for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extent to one month or until payment if sooner made. Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due: Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any ground of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation: If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife' s refusal to live with him. (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding as the case may be, from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding as the case may be, from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. (5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.” The provision specifically provides that wife, children or parents unable to maintain themselves are entitled to receive monthly maintenance from a male who holds the status respectively with reference to them as husband, father or son. 6. The provision does not say that wife, children or parents, who are at the mercy of the parents, grand parents or relatives are not entitled to get monthly maintenance or else in the case of a wife, children or parents who are neglected and surviving at the mercy of other near relatives are not entitled to get maintenance. The reason that deserted or neglected ones are surviving somehow or else being maintained by someone is not a ground to make them disentitle for monthly maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. For that reason, the husband will not be exonerated from his legal obligation to maintain them. 7. The Family Court has appreciated the evidence in the correct perspective and passed the impugned orders modifying the monthly maintenance payable to petitioners justly and reasonably. Maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/-being granted in the year 2005 and modification being sought only in the year 2016 i.e after a lapse of 11 years, the rise in cost of living itself stands in favour of the petitioners and the Family Court is justified in enhancing the rates originally fixed by it. Revision fails for the above reasons and is dismissed. The rates of maintenance stands modified by the impugned order passed by Family Court, Kasaragod is maintained.