JUDGMENT : 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for following reliefs :- “(a) Your Lordship may be pleased to kindly quash and set aside the order dated 25.09.2013 passed by the learned JMFC-Viramgam in Criminal Misc. Application No.13/2010 so also the order dated 21.08.205 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Viramagar in Criminal Revision Application No.18/2013. (b) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordship may be further pleased to kindly stay the implementation and execution of the order order dated 25.09.2013 passed by the learned JMFC-Viramgam in Criminal Misc. Application No.13/2010 so also the order dated 21.08.205 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Viramagar in Criminal Revision Application No.18/2013.” 2. The facts which could be gathered from the pleadings are as under :- 2.1. The petitioner and respondent no.2 are legally married husband and wife. Their marriage took place ten years back according to Islamic rites and rituals. Respondent no.3 minor son was born out of said wedlock. Since matrimonial dispute occurred between both the parties, respondent no.2 along with her minor child abundant matrimonial house and filed Criminal Misc. Application No.13 of 2010 under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before learned JMFC, Viramgam. After filing of written statement, evidence was recorded in summary proceedings. Learned JMFC at the end of the petition ordered to grant maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent no.2 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent no.3 from the date of petition. Cost of Rs.1000/- being litigation is also granted. Present petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the said order before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) by filing Criminal Revision Application No.18 of 2013. This petition is filed assailing both the orders. 3. Notice was served to destitute wife – respondent no.2 and her child, but they chose not to remain present. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Nasir Saiyed appearing for the petitioner would submit that no matrimonial dispute exist between husband and wife. Entire dispute arises because two unmarried sisters were living with respondent no.2. The petitioner being husband of respondent no.2 was not in position to maintain two unmarried sisters. Genesis of grievance lies in this aspect. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Nasir Saiyed appearing for the petitioner would submit that no matrimonial dispute exist between husband and wife. Entire dispute arises because two unmarried sisters were living with respondent no.2. The petitioner being husband of respondent no.2 was not in position to maintain two unmarried sisters. Genesis of grievance lies in this aspect. He would submit that since there was no matrimonial dispute or discord between husband and wife and as petitioner is ready and willing to keep his wife alongwith child, question of granting maintenance would not arise. Submission is also canvassed to the effect that learned both the Courts below failed to notice this aspect while assessing and granting amount of maintenance under section 125. Learned advocate Mr. Saiyed would further submit that serious error has been arrived at by both the Courts below. He would submit to correct this aspect and allow this petition. 5. Learned APP at vehemence would submit that it is pious obligation of the husband to maintain wife and his child. Grant of maintenance of Rs.7000/- in the present scenario is meager amount. The petitioner is expected to fulfill maintenance order. Upon such submission, learned APP submits to dismiss the petition. 6. Within realm of section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, this proceeding is summary in nature and mainly brought in statue to give protection to the destituted wife and child / children and to maintain them. In the circumstances, respondent has been destituted is rightly been interpreted by the learned JMFC. Reading para 11 to 20 of the judgment delivered in Criminal Misc. Application No.13 of 2010 further exposes that learned JMFC assessed evidence correctly and justly. It is undeniable aspect that to get maintenance destitute wife is not required to prove allegations of ill-treatment or cruelty as required under provision of offence under section 498(A) of IPC. Living separately from the husband or circumstances created by the husband forcing her to live separately from matrimonial home are sufficient to establish her claim for maintenance. Insofar as minor child is concerned, it is legitimate, legal and moral duty of the father to maintain his child until he / she attains age of majority. Findings arrived by the learned JMFC in Criminal Misc. Application No.13 of 2010 has been further tested and examined in Criminal Revision Application No.18 of 2013. Insofar as minor child is concerned, it is legitimate, legal and moral duty of the father to maintain his child until he / she attains age of majority. Findings arrived by the learned JMFC in Criminal Misc. Application No.13 of 2010 has been further tested and examined in Criminal Revision Application No.18 of 2013. Learned Sessions Judge within jurisdiction of section 397 of Cr.P.C., tested legality and validity of the maintenance order and approved findings holding that the petitioner is earning Rs.20,820/- which is proved from record. 7. In view of above, the petitioner has failed to make out case under limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. To be noted that jurisdiction of Sessions Court under section 397 to examine veracity of the order passed under section 125 for maintenance is limited to verify on legal aspect. This jurisdiction is circumscribed further under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is nothing on record which warrants interference by this Court with the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. 8. Resultantly, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated.