JUDGMENT : Bivas Pattanayak, J. 1. This Revisional Application has been filed by the petitioner-husband under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment dated 18th August, 2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court at Port Blair in Misc. Case No. 64 of 2018 allowing the application of the opposite party no.1 and 2 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code directing the petitioner-husband to pay Rs. 6,000/-(Rupees Six Thousand only) per month to the wife and Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) per month to the minor child from the date of application and further directed the petitioner-husband to pay arrear maintenance in 10 (ten) equal instalments along with maintenance for current months. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party no.1 was married to the petitioner on 9th April, 2018 and after such marriage, both the petitioner and opposite party no.1 resided in the matrimonial home at Middle Point, Port Blair, where the marriage was duly consummated. After passage of few days of marriage the relationship between the parties started to turn sour. It is alleged that the husband used to suspect the wife of having illicit relationship. The mother of the petitioner-husband asked the opposite party no.1-wife to visit her parents’ house and accordingly, on 20th May, 2018, the opposite party no.1-wife was taken to her parents’ house by the husband and did not go to bring her back. The parents’ of the wife brought her back to the matrimonial home. It is further alleged that the opposite party no.1-wife was tortured in the matrimonial home both physically and mentally. On several occasions there were quarrels between the parties in which wife was assaulted by the husband with fist and blows and PCR was called. In the meantime, the opposite party no.1-wife conceived, however, due to continuous torture it was decided before the women cell that the opposite party no.1-wife will remain with her parents since she was pregnant. On 5th January, 2019, the opposite party no.1-wife gave birth to a male child namely, Vedansh Narayan at G. B. Pant Hospital, Port Blair. The petitioner-husband has neglected and failed to pay any maintenance to opposite party no.1-wife. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, the opposite party no.1-wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for monthly maintenance of Rs. 30,000/-. 3. The petitioner-husband has neglected and failed to pay any maintenance to opposite party no.1-wife. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, the opposite party no.1-wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for monthly maintenance of Rs. 30,000/-. 3. During the pendency of such application, the opposite party no.1-wife gave birth to a male child on 5th January, 2019. The minor child was impleaded as petitioner no. 2 in the aforesaid application for maintenance on 8th January, 2020 as informed by the learned counsels for respective parties. 4. Upon considering the materials on record and the evidence adduced by the respective parties, learned Family Court allowed the application of the opposite parties under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and granted maintenance in favour of opposite party no.1-wife of Rs. 6,000/-(Rupees Six Thousand Only) per month and Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand Only) per month in favour of the opposite party no.2-minor child from the date of application and also directed for payment of arrear maintenance as well for current months. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the petitioner-husband has filed the present revisional application. 6. Mr. Lokesh Chezian N., learned counsel for the petitioner-husband submitted that the opposite party no.1-wife in the proceeding before the Family Court had failed to prove the income of her husband which aspect has not been taken into account by the learned Trial Court. Further the petitioner-husband has meagre or no source of income and as such the order directing for payment is a hardship on him. He further submitted that although the learned Trial Court has framed points for determination as to whether the husband having sufficient means neglected the wife but it has not made any specific finding to that effect and thus when there is no neglect on the part of the husband to maintain his wife, the claim for maintenance is not sustainable. The opposite party no.1-wife has left her matrimonial home out of her own accord and parties are living separately on mutual consent. The petitioner-husband has taken steps but the wife has not returned back to the matrimonial home without any reason. Accordingly her claim to maintenance is hit by Section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The opposite party no.1-wife has left her matrimonial home out of her own accord and parties are living separately on mutual consent. The petitioner-husband has taken steps but the wife has not returned back to the matrimonial home without any reason. Accordingly her claim to maintenance is hit by Section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Further learned Family Court has granted maintenance from the date of filing of the application (i.e. 9th October, 2018) in respect of both the wife and the minor child, however, on such date of application, the minor child was not born and therefore, the order granting maintenance from date of filing of the application needs to be modified. He further submitted that the petitioner-husband has regularly paid interim maintenance to the opposite party in compliance to order of the trial court. In light of his aforesaid submission, he prayed for allowing the revisional application. 7. In reply to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner-husband, Ms. A.S. Zinu, learned counsel for opposite party no. 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner-husband at the time of proceeding before the learned Family Court did not disclose his actual income and it is settled proposition of law that an able bodied person is presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to maintain his wife and child and the husband cannot contend of having no sufficient income to support his wife and child. To buttress her contention, she relied on the decision of this Court passed in Ali Hossain versus Baby Farida Khatoon reported in 1998 CriLJ 2762. She further submitted that the petitioner-husband during his cross-examination had admitted that he has got no ailment and there are also no materials on record to suggest that the petitioner-husband is not an able bodied person and cannot earn. Relying on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Jaiveer Singh vs. Sunita Chudhary (Crl. Rev. P. 820 of 2018 and Crl. M.A. 32656 of 2018) she submitted that the plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife and child if he is an able bodied person. The beneficial legislation under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code casts an obligation upon the husband to maintain his wife and children who are put into vagrancy and destitution. The beneficial legislation under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code casts an obligation upon the husband to maintain his wife and children who are put into vagrancy and destitution. In view of her aforesaid submissions she prayed the impugned order of the Family Court should be affirmed. However, she conceded that the date of effect of the order in case of minor child should be from the date when he was added as a party i.e. from 8th January 2020 and not from the date of application (i.e. 9th October 2018) since at that time he was not born. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties following issues have fallen for consideration : i. Whether the learned Family Court erred in allowing maintenance in favour of the opposite party no.1 and 2 without recording any specific findings of the income of the husband? ii. Whether the entitlement of maintenance of the opposite party-wife is hit by Section 125 sub-section (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code? iii. Whether the entitlement of maintenance of opposite party no.2-minor child should be from the date of his impleadment in the application for maintenance?. 9. With regard to the first issue it has been strenuously argued on behalf of the petitioner-husband that he has a meagre or no source of income and is not financially strong and further that the opposite party no.1-wife has failed to establish before the court of the actual income of the petitioner-husband. Per contra it is pressed into service on behalf of the opposite party n.1 and 2 that an able bodied person should be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to provide maintenance. In order to appreciate and examine the issue raised by petitioner-husband it would be appropriate to look into written objection filed by the petitioner-husband before the learned Family Court. Upon going through the written objection it is found that the petitioner-husband, denying the claim of the wife as regards his income, has stated that he has no source of income and is not financially strong. However, he has not made specific disclosure of his actual earning. What the husband earns is obviously within the special knowledge of the husband. Upon going through the written objection it is found that the petitioner-husband, denying the claim of the wife as regards his income, has stated that he has no source of income and is not financially strong. However, he has not made specific disclosure of his actual earning. What the husband earns is obviously within the special knowledge of the husband. From cross-examination of petitioner-husband (DW1) it is found that he read up to class XII and that he has got two flats at Goalghar out of which one has been put on rent and another is used by him for residential purpose and he pays water charges and electricity charges of the two flats. A person having two flats cannot be said to be without sufficient means. The trend of cross-examination would show that the petitioner-husband has avoided in disclosing his income by giving evasive answers that he has no idea about any other properties of his parents or his father or the amount of property tax paid by him in respect of two flats. This omission to disclose his own income would be sufficient to warrant an inference that he has capability of earning sufficient means and does earn sufficient income to maintain his wife and children. It is true that the learned Family Court has not recorded any specific finding as to how much the husband earns but such aspect cannot be faulted particularly when the best person to enlighten the Court on this point withheld the relevant data and it was also not within the knowledge of the wife as to how much her husband earns. It is found from the evidence of petitioner-husband (DW1) that he has got no ailment and thus he is an able-bodied person. It is trite law that an able bodied person has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient means so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child. Therefore the plea of the husband that he has no source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife and children if he is an able bodied person. Thus, I find substance in the submission of Ms. Zinu learned counsel for opposite party no.1 and 2 relying on Ali Hossain (Supra) and Jaiveer Singh (supra) in this regard. Thus, I find substance in the submission of Ms. Zinu learned counsel for opposite party no.1 and 2 relying on Ali Hossain (Supra) and Jaiveer Singh (supra) in this regard. On aforesaid conspectus the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner-husband falls short of merit. 9.1. Mr Chezian N., learned counsel for the petitioner-husband has argued that though the learned Family Court has framed point for determination whether the wife was neglected by the husband in providing maintenance yet it has not recorded any specific finding to that effect and as such when there is no neglect, the wife cannot claim maintenance. The learned Family Court has framed three points for determination of which it has framed a point whether inspite of sufficient means the husband neglected the wife and child. It proceeded to consider all the points for determination together on the ground that they are interrelated. It is true that the learned Family Court did not record any specific findings of neglect by the husband to maintain his wife and child. Be that as it may, since the time the parties started to reside separately, there is no iota of evidence to suggest that petitioner-husband used to provide monetary assistance to his wife and child towards their livelihood and sustenance. There is also no case made out by the petitioner-husband before the learned Family Court that prior to filing of the application for maintenance by the wife he all along provided maintenance to the wife and child. Rather, it is only after the court passed order directing for maintenance on interim basis that the petitioner-husband started to make payment. Undisputedly the opposite party no. 1-wife has no independent source of income. Thus it goes without saying that the petitioner-husband did neglect to maintain his wife and child. Therefore, such argument of the petitioner-husband does not stand to reason. 10. With regard to the second issue referring to the cross-examination of opposite party no. 1-wife, Mr. Chezian N, learned counsel for petitioner-husband argued that before the women cell both parties consented to live separately and there is no case filed by the wife alleging of any torture, which clearly indicates that the opposite party no.1-wife has left the matrimonial home out of her own accord and as such her claim of maintenance is not sustainable in law. On the other hand Ms. On the other hand Ms. Zinu, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 and 2 submitted that since the opposite party no. 1-wife at the material point of time was pregnant it was decided before the women cell that she will reside with her parents and there is no iota of evidence that the petitioner-husband has made any endeavour to bring back the wife and therefore such argument is untenable. Although the petitioner-husband in his written objection has stated that his wife has got no intention to return back to the matrimonial home but such fact has never been established by way of evidence. There is nothing on record that in spite of repeated persuasion by the petitioner-husband, the opposite party no.1-wife has intentionally continued to reside with her parents. Rather the petitioner-husband (DW1) has admitted in his cross-examination that he did not take any steps to reside with his wife. It is revealed from the cross-examination of opposite party-wife (PW1) that she lodged complaint against the husband on the ground that he suspected of her having illicit relationship with some other person. The opposite party no.1-wife (PW1) has also deposed that on two occasions she lodged complaint and PCR was called by her. Although she admitted that she did not file any case alleging of torture yet the above materials manifest of matrimonial discord. Therefore it cannot be said that the opposite party no.1-wife out of her own accord and without any sufficient reason is living separately. Thus the entitlement of the wife is not hit by Section 125 (4) of the Code. Due to the aforesaid reason the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner-husband fall short of merit. 11. Coming to the last issue relating to grant of maintenance from date of application, it is informed by learned counsel of the respective parties that opposite party no. 2, minor child, was born 5th on January, 2019 and he has been impleaded in the application for maintenance on 8th January, 2020. It is found that learned Family Court has granted the maintenance allowance for both the wife and child from the date of filing of the application by the wife on 9th October, 2018. Since on the date of filing of such application, opposite party no. It is found that learned Family Court has granted the maintenance allowance for both the wife and child from the date of filing of the application by the wife on 9th October, 2018. Since on the date of filing of such application, opposite party no. 2-minor child, was not born, hence, such direction needs to be modified to the extent that the order shall take effect from the date of filing of the maintenance application on 9th October, 2018 in respect of opposite party no. 1-wife and from the date of addition of minor child in the application for maintenance on 8th January 2020 in respect of opposite party no.2 minor child. 12. The quantum of maintenance has been challenged on the ground that the Court has erroneously taken into consideration the aspect of educational expenses of the petitioners in the absence of any evidence of persuasion of any educational course. The minor child at the time of passing of the judgment by the Family Court was more than 3 1/2 years old and presumably the future education of the child has weighed with the Court and accordingly, the learned Family Court has considered the educational expenses along with other factors such as price of the essential commodities, medical expenses and basic requirements for arriving at the quantum of maintenance. The quantum of maintenance allowed by the learned Family Court is reasonable and does not call for interference. 13. Before parting it is noted that provisions under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children for destitution and vagrancy. The object of granting maintenance is not to punish a person but to compel those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. It provides for a speedy remedy for livelihood to the deserted wife and children. It gives effect to fundamental right and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, child and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. 14. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any impropriety in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court so far as quantum of maintenance and direction for payment of arrears and current monthly maintenance is concerned and accordingly it is affirmed. 14. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any impropriety in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court so far as quantum of maintenance and direction for payment of arrears and current monthly maintenance is concerned and accordingly it is affirmed. However, the order of maintenance in respect of opposite party no. 1-wife shall take effect from the date of filing of maintenance application on 9th October, 2018 and the order of maintenance in respect of the opposite party no.2-minor child shall take effect from the date of his impleadment in the application for maintenance on 8th January, 2020. 15. With the aforesaid observation, the revisional application stands disposed of. 16. All connected application, if any, stands disposed of. 17. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 18. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all legal formalities.