JUDGMENT : This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 23.08.2019, passed by Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pakur, in Original Maintenance Case No.88 of 2018, by which the learned Principal Judge has directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand) per month towards maintenance to the O.P. No. 2. 2. The case of the wife-O.P. No. 2 in brief is that she had solemnized marriage with the petitioner on 05.05.1985 and right from the beginning she was tortured by this petitioner and she lived in her matrimonial home for about four years and she gave birth to a daughter, namely Simpa Kumari and she has got her daughter married to one Santosh Kumar Gupta. However, in the meantime, her daughter was also ousted from her matrimonial home and at present she is living with her. It is also stated that the petitioner is not maintaining her although he earns Rs. 40,000/-per month by running a grocery shop and from the cultivable land and hence, an amount of Rs. 15,000/-per month may be allowed to her as maintenance 3. The case of the petitioner is that the wife has voluntarily left her matrimonial home and she did not return though he has tried several times to bring her back. He has denied any torture and atrocities committed upon the O.P. No. 2-Wife. He has further even denied the birth of a female child and he denied running any grocery shop and any cultivable land and has stated that he is earning Rs.200/-per month by working as a labour. 4. Heard Mrs. Nirupama, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned A.P.P. and Mr. Yasir Arafat, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that O.P. No.2 has voluntarily left her matrimonial home and she is living separately for more than 35 years. It is submitted that wife-O.P. No. 2 had an affair with someone else. It is submitted that O.P. No.2 has voluntarily left her matrimonial home and she is living separately for more than 35 years. It is submitted that wife-O.P. No. 2 had an affair with someone else. It is submitted that petitioner has performed marriage with another girl and has got two children from the second marriage and maintaining his liabilities and hence it is submitted that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are the interested witnesses as P.W. 1 is the O.P. No. 2 herself, whereas P.W.2, namely Geeta Devi is the mother of P.W. 1 and therefore, she has supported the case of the O.P. No. 2-wife. It is submitted that the learned Court below has not properly considered the evidence of these witnesses, examined as P.W.1 and also P.W.2 and hence the impugned order may be set aside and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the learned Court below has granted maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/-per month. It is submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.2, namely Asha Devi and Geeta Devi respectively, has fully supported the case. It is submitted that this petitioner has performed second marriage without giving divorce to his first wife, i.e. O.P. No. 2 and hence, no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order. 7. Perused the Lower Court Records of this case and heard learned counsel for both sides. 8. It transpires that marriage between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 was solemnized on 05.05.1985 and the petitioner has admitted his marriage with the O.P. No. 2. 9. It also appears from the judgment passed by the learned Court below that two witnesses were examined on behalf of the O.P. No. 2, who are as follows:- (i) P.W. 1 is Asha Devi, i.e. the wife-O.P. No. 2 (ii) P.W. 2 is Geeta Devi, mother of O.P. No. 2. 10. The petitioner has got examined two witnesses in support of his case, who are as follows:- (i) O.P.W.1 is Girish Prasad Gupta, i.e. this petitioner (ii) O.P.W.2 is Mahesh Prasad Gupta, i.e. brother of the petitioner. 11. 10. The petitioner has got examined two witnesses in support of his case, who are as follows:- (i) O.P.W.1 is Girish Prasad Gupta, i.e. this petitioner (ii) O.P.W.2 is Mahesh Prasad Gupta, i.e. brother of the petitioner. 11. It further transpires that learned Court below has discussed the evidence of P.W.1, i.e. O.P. No. 2 and has observed that though she has admitted of doing work in Anganbaribut she does not get salary every month. Learned Court has further discussed the evidence of O.P.W.1, who has admitted during his cross-examination that he has performed second marriage with another lady, namely Asha Devi without giving divorce to O.P. No. 2-Wife. The learned Court below has also observed that even O.P.W.2, i.e. the brother of this petitioner has also admitted the fact of marriage between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 and that the petitioner has married again without giving divorce to his first wife. 12. In view of the above discussions, it is abundantly clear that the relationship between the parties is admitted. 13. It further transpires that without giving divorce to the first wife, i.e. O.P. No. 2, the petitioner has solemnized second marriage with another lady, namely Asha Devi. 14. It is well settled from the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court that even if the wife is working somewhere to manage herself the husband is not absolved from the liability to pay the maintenance amount. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 has held at Para-77, 78, 79, 80, 112 and 113, as follows:- “Para-77:-The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. Para-78:-The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a nonworking wife. [Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7 ; Refer to Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290] Para-79:-In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it. Para-80:-On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. 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 if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications. [Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339] Para-112:-In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse [Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 51], the Supreme Court was considering the interpretation of Section 125 CrPC. The Court held : (SCC p. 196, para 13) “13.3. … purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125 CrPC. While dealing with the application of a destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalised sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve “social justice” which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path under the rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the courts to advance the cause of social justice. While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society.” Para-113:-It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in the orders passed by all courts, by directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the court concerned. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant.” 16. It has been held in the case of Sunita Kachwaha and Others vs Anil Kachwaha reported in 2014 (16) SCC 715 at para 7, 8 and 10 as follows:- “Para-7:-Inability to maintain herself is the pre-condition for grant of maintenance to the wife. It has been held in the case of Sunita Kachwaha and Others vs Anil Kachwaha reported in 2014 (16) SCC 715 at para 7, 8 and 10 as follows:- “Para-7:-Inability to maintain herself is the pre-condition for grant of maintenance to the wife. The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her. In her evidence, the appellant-wife has stated that only due to help of her retired parents and brothers, she is able to maintain herself and her daughters. Where the wife states that she has great hardships in maintaining herself and the daughters, while her husband’s economic condition is quite good, the wife would be entitled to maintenance. Para-8:-The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant-wife is well qualified, having post graduate degree in Geography and working as a teacher in Jabalpur and also working in Health Department. Therefore, she has income of her own and needs no financial support from respondent. In our considered view, merely because the appellant-wife is a qualified post graduate, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself. Insofar as her employment as a teacher in Jabalpur, nothing was placed on record before the Family Court or in the High Court to prove her employment and her earnings. In any event, merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. Para-10:-The impugned order of the High Court dated 26.06.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 2303/2007 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay the maintenance of Rs.3,000/-per month to the appellant-wife as ordered by the Family Court and also pay the arrears of maintenance payable to the appellant-wife within the period of eight weeks.” 17. The respondent is directed to pay the maintenance of Rs.3,000/-per month to the appellant-wife as ordered by the Family Court and also pay the arrears of maintenance payable to the appellant-wife within the period of eight weeks.” 17. It has been held in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy reported in 2017 Vol (14) SCC 200 at paragraph 15, as follows :- “Para 15:-The review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC came to be filed by the respondent wife pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court when the earlier order dated 2-2-20152 awarding a maintenance of Rs 16,000 to the respondent wife as well as to her minor son was under challenge before this Court. As pointed out by the High Court, in February 2015, the appellant husband was getting a net salary of Rs 63,842 after deduction of Rs 24,000 on account of GPF and Rs 12,000 towards income tax. In February 2016, the net salary of the appellant is stated to be Rs 95.527. Following Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari, in this case, it was held that 25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance. Maintenance is always dependent on the factual situation of the case and the court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors. Since in February 2016, the net salary of the husband was Rs 95,000 per month, the High Court was justified in enhancing the maintenance amount. However, since the appellant has also got married second time and has a child from the second marriage, in the interest of justice, we think it proper to reduce the amount of maintenance of Rs 23.000 to Rs 20.000 per month as maintenance to the respondent wife and son. 18. It has been held in Chaturbhuj Vs Sita Bai reported in (2008 ) SCC 316 at paragraph 8, as follows: Para 8:-“In and illustrative case where the wife was surviving by begging, it would not amount to her ability to maintain herself. It can also be not said that he wife has been capable of earning but she was not making an effort to earn. It can also be not said that he wife has been capable of earning but she was not making an effort to earn. Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. In Bhagwan Dutt V. Kamla Devi it was observed that wife should be in a position to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression “unable to maintain herself” does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. 19. In view of the discussions made above and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in passing the impugned Order. 20. Thus, this Criminal Revision Application is hereby dismissed.