ORDER 1. This criminal revision under section 397/401 of Cr.P.C has been preferred against the order dated 24.7.2013 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Khargone, Bhopal in M.Cr.C.No.51/2013 whereby the Court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance under section 127 of Cr.P.C to the respondent No.2 at the rate of 8,000/- per month from the date of application 29.1.2013. 2. It is not in dispute that the applicant is husband of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is their minor son. It is also not in dispute that earlier the learned Family Court awarded Rs.1500/- as maintenance allowance in favour of respondent no.2 who was aged about 12 years at the time of institution of M.Cr.C.No.51/2013. 3. The applicant challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the amount is very excessive. The Family Court has wrongly disbelieved his salary slip and statement of his loan accounts, which were considered by the Court while granting maintenance allowance at the rate of 1500/- to respondent No.2. The brother of the applicant is lunatic. The loan was provided by his another brother (Yogesh). The applicant earns only Rs.16000 - 17000/- as salary. Hence, he prayed to set aside the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has strongly opposed the contentions of the applicant by stating that the Family Court held that just to avoid paying maintenance allowance to his own son, the applicant has given false statement. He has suppressed the actual income, which is more than Rs.16,900/-. He cannot neglect to maintain his son. In year 2005, Rs.1500/- was awarded by the Court as maintenance allowance. Looking to the expenses this small amount is not sufficient for maintenance of respondent No.2. As he is growing, his needs and other expenses, particularly for his studies are also increasing, therefore, the Family Court awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.8000/- per month to him. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from his own brother and he is repaying him in installment at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month. Again, the applicant submits that his income is only Rs. 16,900/- per month. The order passed by Family Court accordingly be modified because the respondent No.1 herself runs a Nokia showroom and earns more than sufficient amount. Again, the applicant submits that his income is only Rs. 16,900/- per month. The order passed by Family Court accordingly be modified because the respondent No.1 herself runs a Nokia showroom and earns more than sufficient amount. She got her son admitted unnecessarily in a big renowned school, therefore, for educational expenses she herself is responsible to pay it. 6. Heard both the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 7. From the perusal of record it is apparently clear that now the respondent No.2 has become major and as a son he is entitled to get appropriate amount as maintenance allowance from his father, who is neglecting to maintain him. From the impugned judgment it is proved that the applicant refused to maintain his son who is minor and he had not paid maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1500/- regularly to him as per earlier order dated 24.2.2005 passed under section 125 of Cr.P.C. Undoubtedly, requirement of a growing child increases day-by-day. A child has no volition or will of his own. Mere failure or omission to maintain, amounts to neglecting to maintain. 8. The respondent No.2 has claimed Rs.10,000/- per month from his father. He also claimed that his father is working as an Engineer in Sanctuary Yarn, Satrati and earns Rs.40,000/- and other income, in total Rs.70,000/- per month. The applicant has not denied that he works in Santuary Yarn, Satrati Khargone and is an Engineer in that mill. A skilled person earns almost Rs.15000 - 16000/- per month. The applicant is an Engineer and from his bank statement it is clear that in year 2013 he was earning Rs.24,315/-. His salary has been increasing every year. He also filed statement of his loan account (Annexure-A/6) to establish his loan repayment. All these documents do show that he was earning more than Rs.16000 - 17000/- from 2005 -2013. 9. Definitely, his income was increasing, may be he was under burden to maintain his mother and a mentally retarded brother. But his submission cannot be accepted that he is not able to pay maintenance allowance to his son from his earnings. 10. In this regard it would be worth to state that an order under this section can be passed only if a person 'having sufficient means' neglects to maintain his wife or child. But his submission cannot be accepted that he is not able to pay maintenance allowance to his son from his earnings. 10. In this regard it would be worth to state that an order under this section can be passed only if a person 'having sufficient means' neglects to maintain his wife or child. But, the expression ' means' occurring in this section does not signify only visible means such as real property or definite employment. If a man is healthy and able-bodied, he must be held to possess the means to support his wife, children and parents and he cannot be relieved of his obligation on the ground that he is a mere boy and is unemployed. The words 'sufficient means' should not be confined to the actual pecuniary resources but should have reference to the earning capacity. "Means" of the husband does not mean the tangible property or sources of income of the husband but also his capacity, potentiality and status. The maintenance has to be determined in the light of the standard of living of the person concerned, the earnings of the husband, his other financial commitments etc. insolvency of the husband is not conclusive to such determination. His capacity to work and earn, is material. 11. In this context it is appropriate to refer to the decision in the case of Anju Garg and Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314 wherein the Supreme Court held as under: (10) This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [2], it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but t o prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. 12. In the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 , the Supreme Court held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife. Thus, the Courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. In fact, furthermore, merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. 13. In the case of Shyamlal v. Mansha Bai, 1998 Cr.L.J2704 (Raj), it was held that "Minor children living with their mother even if the mother is earning, are entitled to maintenance from their father". 14. In the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460 , a two- Judge Bench of this Court elucidated on the revisional power of the Court under section 397 and held as under: 12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well- founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. 13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question a s to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. 15. In the case of Irshad Ali v. State of U.P and another 2021 SCC OnLine All 92 the Supreme Court held as under: 18. In view of evidence on record, the grant of maintenance from the date of application cannot be said arbitrary or against law. The quantum of maintenance also appears reasonable and appropriate. If a party deliberately delays the proceedings for long period, such party must not be allowed to take advantage of such tactics. **** 20. ... recently in case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak [Criminal Appeal No. 485 of 2019] decided on 13.03.2019, Hon'ble apex Court has laid down that object of section 397 CrPC is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. **** 20. ... recently in case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak [Criminal Appeal No. 485 of 2019] decided on 13.03.2019, Hon'ble apex Court has laid down that object of section 397 CrPC is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the Court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. The revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. 16. In the light of above principles, in my considered opinion learned trial Court has rightly awarded Rs.8000/- per month as maintenance allowance in favour of the minor child of the applicant, therefore, this Court finds no perversity or illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed. 17. However it is directed that respondent No.2 will be entitled to maintenance as directed above i.e. from date of application till he attains majority. The applicant is directed to pay the arrears of difference of maintenance amount to the respondent No.2 within a period of 30 days.