JUDGMENT : Sanjay Prasad, J. This Criminal Revision No. 607 of 2020 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the Judgment dated 06.02.2020 passed by Smt. Sanjeeta Srivastava, learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance No. 408 of 2017 by which the petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. by the opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 has been allowed and direction has been given to the husband- petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 1- wife namely Ateka Sowaid as maintenance till she is alive and Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2-son namely Mobashirul Haque till he attains his age of majority and Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 3-daugher namely Aiman Fatima till she is wilfully married or gainfully employed and the maintenance amount will be payable from the date of order. Petitioner has also been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner as Litigation Cost. 2. The opposite party nos. 1 to 3 has filed maintenance case before the learned Court below on 12.09.2017 under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. stating therein that the opposite party no. 1 is the legally married wife of the petitioner and the marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 28.12.2005 at Dhanbad as per the Muslim Rites and Customs on 28.12.2005 at Dhanbad and they lived together as husband and wife and out of their wedlock, the couple has been blessed with opposite party no.2, Mobashirul Haque and opposite party no. 3, Aiman Fatima. However, she has been subjected to torture and cruelty for demand of dowry by the petitioner and she along with her children had been thrown out from the matrimonial house by her husband-the petitioner on 07.07.2017. Her husband has wilfully failed and neglected to maintained or pay maintenance to the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 despite having sufficient means whereas the wife-opposite party no. 1 has no source of income to maintain herself and her children and she is presently dependent upon her parents, who have their own expenses and may not be in position to support them for long period. She further stated that her husband is an Engineer in Railway and earning Rs. 80,000/- per month and hence, she may be paid maintenance Rs. She further stated that her husband is an Engineer in Railway and earning Rs. 80,000/- per month and hence, she may be paid maintenance Rs. 20,000/- per month and be paid Rs. 10,000/- per month each towards maintenance to opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.3 totalling Rs. 40,000/- per month. 3. The case of the husband-petitioner, in brief, is that the maintenance case filed by his wife is not maintainable. It has been stated that the marriage took place at Bhagalpur (Bihar), but not in Dhanbad between the parties. However, after marriage, he along with his wife lived for around two years in the house of his brother, then, he has taken the house on rent and lived with the opposite party no.2 i.e. his wife for around three (3) years at Ramjan Manzil, Naya Bazar. Thereafter, the petitioner had purchased a piece of land in the name of his wife i.e. opposite party no. 1 namely Ateka Sowaid at City Colony within Bhuli Police Station and had made expenses from his own money and after taking loan from his brother. Thereafter, he got constructed a house in city colony, has taken a house on rent in city colony and started living with his wife and house was constructed around three years and for which he had taken loan of Rs. 12,00,000/- from his three brothers, which was not paid by him. However, after birth of her daughter, behaviour of his wife changed and she has refused to establish physical relationship with him and has started living separately and still due to change in nature and change of time, the petitioner continued to live with his wife and children, but the opposite party no.1-wife started demanding divorce and he made his children distant from the petitioner. He further stated that the applicant i.e. the wife is an open minded lady and she has been found roaming with young age persons and have seen with several people and despite his prohibition, she has refused to obey his suggestion and started humiliating him and demanding Talaq and thereafter she has asked the petitioner to move out from his house and she has not opened the door of his house on 06.07.2017, when the petitioner had returned to the residence after official work. She has threatened in the name of Md. She has threatened in the name of Md. Imran, who is S.P. in UP Cadre and threatened him of dire consequences and as a result of which, the petitioner was compelled to live separately in a rented house and the applicant-wife is keeping all her articles, ID etc. and he has been forced to live separately in a rented house in the same city, although he has constructed his house. He is also paying school fees, vehicle rent and other expenses of his children and is maintaining his family by purchasing all the articles of fooding. He has denied to have taken any dowry at the time of marriage. However, the applicant-wife wanted to live separately from him by humiliating him and by implicating him in false allegation. He has also filed one Original Suit No. 401 of 2017 for Restitution Of Conjugal Right as he wanted to live with his wife and children and hence maintenance case may be dismissed 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the O. P. No. 1. 5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the learned Court below has not considered the case of the husband-petitioner properly. It is submitted that the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 are residing in the house constructed by the petitioner by purchasing land and taking loan from his brothers and also from his own expenses and he has been forced to live separately since 06.07.2017 from his wife and children. It is submitted that the petitioner is paying for the food items purchased by his wife and children directly through “Friends Food Store” and this fact has not been denied by the wife-opposite party no. 1. It is submitted that the petitioner is read to live with his wife and children. It is submitted that the petitioner has never neglected to maintain his wife and children and is still performing his duty to maintain them from his own expenses. However, the opposite party no. 1 i.e. the wife has refused to perform marital obligation with the petitioner after birth of his daughter. It is submitted that the opposite party no. It is submitted that the petitioner has never neglected to maintain his wife and children and is still performing his duty to maintain them from his own expenses. However, the opposite party no. 1 i.e. the wife has refused to perform marital obligation with the petitioner after birth of his daughter. It is submitted that the opposite party no. 1 has filed the present case as counter blast of Matrimonial Suit No. 401 of 2017 filed by the petitioner and when summon was received by her on 12.09.2017. It is submitted that the petitioner is not willing to pronounce Talaque and is still ready and willing to keep his wife and children. It is submitted that as the opposite party no. 1 is not willing to live with this petitioner, hence she is not entitled to maintenance in view of the provisions of Section 125 (4) of the CrPC and in support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Sutapa Banerjee Versus State of Jharkhand and Anr. Reported in 2012 (3) East Cr. C 302 (Jhr.) and as such, the impugned judgment may be set aside in the interest of justice and this Criminal Revision may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required by this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner has neglected his wife and children and as such, no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below by passing the impugned judgment and as such, the criminal revision application may be dismissed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1, after adopting the submission of the learned A.P.P., has further submitted that this Criminal Revision Application is devoid of merit. It is submitted that the impugned judgement passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required by this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner has thoroughly neglected his wife and children and as such, the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned judgment in favour of wife and children. It is submitted that the petitioner is living separately from his wife and children in the same town. It is submitted that the petitioner has thoroughly neglected his wife and children and as such, the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned judgment in favour of wife and children. It is submitted that the petitioner is living separately from his wife and children in the same town. It is submitted that only after issuance of warrant of arrest, the petitioner has deposited Rs. 3,05,000/- by the order of the learned Court below and hence, he cannot take a plea for maintaining his wife and children. It is submitted that evidence of the petitioner cannot be relied upon. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Government Servant and is an Engineer and is earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month and hence, no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below by passing the impugned judgment and as such impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and as such, this Criminal Revision may be dismissed. 8. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submission of both the sides. 9. It transpires from the records that opposite party no. 1 is the wife of the petitioner and she along with opposite party nos. 2 and 3 had filed Maintenance Case bearing Original Maintenance Case No. 408 of 2017 against the petitioner. The petitioner had appeared and filed show cause on 27.01.2018. 10. The wife-opposite party no.1 has got examined one witness in support of her case, who is as follows:- (i) P.W.1- Ateka Sowaid i.e. wife- the O. P. No.1 herself. . 11. However, opposite party no. 1 has not marked any documents as Exhibits in support of her case. 12. The husband –petitioner has examined one witness in support of his case, as follows:- (i) R.W.-1, Irshadul Haque i.e. the petitioner himself. 13. The petitioner, in support of his claim, has got marked the following Exhibits, which are as follows:- (i) Ext.- A is CC of sale deed No.8262/7370, (ii) Ext.-B is Affidavit of Notary Public of Abdul Rashid dated 27/04/2018, (iii) Ext.-C is Estimate of Electricity Bill JSEB, (iv) Ext.-D is CC Order Sheet of Misc. Case No. 126/2017, (v) Ext.-E is CC of Mark Sheet of Aiman Fatima, (vi) Ext.-F is CC of Mark Sheet of Mobashirul Haque Mati, (vii) Ext.-G is CC of Progress Card of Mobashirul Haque Mati, (viii) Ext.-H is CC of order sheet of Misc. Case No. 126/2017, (v) Ext.-E is CC of Mark Sheet of Aiman Fatima, (vi) Ext.-F is CC of Mark Sheet of Mobashirul Haque Mati, (vii) Ext.-G is CC of Progress Card of Mobashirul Haque Mati, (viii) Ext.-H is CC of order sheet of Misc. Case No.219/2017, (ix) Ext.-I is CC of Plaint of Misc. Petition No.219/2017, (x) Ext.-J is CC of Sanha reported to Bhuli P.S bearing No.9/17, (xi) Ext.-K is CC of Affidavit of Irshadul Haque dtd. 03/06/2013, (xii) Ext.-L to L/16 are Rent Receipts respectively, (xiii) Ext.-M is Affidavit of Sarfaraj Alam Ansari dtd. 01/05/2018, (xiv) Ext.-N is Receipt of Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad, (xv) Ext.-O is Order sheet of O.S No.401/2017, (xvi) Ext.-P is Plaint of O.S No.401/2017, (xvii) Ext.-Q is Electricity Bill receipt, (xviii) Ext.-R is Information Petition No.126/2017 and (xix) Ext.-S & S/1 are Mark Sheet of Aiman Fatima and Mobashirul Haque Mati. 14. Thereafter, the learned Court below, after considering the submission of both the sides, has allowed the maintenance petition filed on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and had directed to the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 1- wife namely Ateka Sowaid as maintenance till she alive and Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2-son namely Mobashirul Haque till he attains his age of majority and Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 3-daugher namely Aiman Fatima till she is wilfully married or gainfully employed. However, the learned Court below committed error by directing that the maintenance amount will be payable from the date of order. Therefore, this instant Criminal Revision Application has been filed. 15. The present case is of clear nature that on the one hand, the petitioner-husband has shown wiliness to live with his wife and children i.e. opposite party nos. 1 to 3. However, the wife-opposite party no. 1 is not willing to live with her husband. 16. So far as oral evidence is concerned, P.W.-1 is Ateka Sowaid i.e. opposite party no. 1. 1 to 3. However, the wife-opposite party no. 1 is not willing to live with her husband. 16. So far as oral evidence is concerned, P.W.-1 is Ateka Sowaid i.e. opposite party no. 1. She has stated during her evidence that she was married with the petitioner on 28.12.2007 and she has been blessed with two children namely Mobashirul Haque i.e. the son aged around ten (10) years and Aiman Fatima i.e. the daughter aged around eight (8) years and her son is studying in Class –VIIII in De Nobili School and her daughter is studying in Class-III in Carmel School. However, she has been ousted by her husband on 07.07.2017 and since then, she is living in her house situated at City Colony at By Pass Road and her maike is at Bhagalpur and she has to sell out her jewellery and has taken economic help from her family members for making construction of the house at By Pass Road. However, her husband is an Engineer and earning around Rs. 80,000/-, but he is not giving maintenance to her and her children. 17. During cross-examination, she has stated that she is not aware that as to when people of her maike had helped her economically for construction of house and she does not remember the khata number of the land. She has denied that her husband-petitioner had purchased the land and house in her name and on which the house has been constructed. She denied for disliking her husband since the year 2016. However, she denied the suggestion that she does not want to live with him. She further flatly stated that she will not get the petitioner i.e. her husband in her house. She further admitted that school fee of her two children is being paid by her husband. However, she denied that their expenses have been made by him. She has shown ignorance that her husband had instituted some complaint against her in police and other places. She has further stated that household expenses has been given by her brother. 18. Thus, from securitizing the evidence of P.W.-1, Ateka Sowaid, it is evident that she is the wife of the petitioner and she is living in a house constructed at the City Colony near By Pass Road, although her maike is in Bhagalpur. She has further stated that household expenses has been given by her brother. 18. Thus, from securitizing the evidence of P.W.-1, Ateka Sowaid, it is evident that she is the wife of the petitioner and she is living in a house constructed at the City Colony near By Pass Road, although her maike is in Bhagalpur. Thus assertion of the petitioner appears to be correct that he has purchased the land in the name of his wife (Opposite Party No. 1). He has got constructed the house on the said land. She has further admitted that school fees is being paid by her husband and thus, there is more possibility that her husband is meeting all other expenses. She has herself stated that she will not keep her husband in her house. However, the wife has neither examined her parents nor her brother nor any other person to support her plea that her household expenses is being borne by her brother. 19. So far as evidence of the petitioner is concerned, R.W.-1, Irshadul Haque i.e. the petitioner himself and has denied the claim of the opposite part no. 1 for maintenance. He has stated that he is living in a rented house since July, 2017 separately. He further stated that he got constructed house at City By Pass Colony and where he lived from 2013 till 05.06.2017 and he has purchased the said land in the name of his wife i.e. the opposite party no. 1 and who asked him to vacate the house. He has purchased the land by his own amount and by taking loan from his brother and he got constructed the house himself. However, the applicant-opposite party no. 1 used to threaten him to give Talaque and to vacate the house, but he does not want to give divorce to her. He further emphasised that he is still meeting all the expenses of the applicant-opposite party no.1 and except cosmetic articles, he is giving all the household articles and necessary articles. They have got two children and her son is studying in De Nobali School, however, daughter is studying in Carmel School and he is giving entire expenses. He further stated that he has also filed one suit bearing case number 401 of 2017 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. He can file prove and certificate for giving maintenance to his wife. 20. He further stated that he has also filed one suit bearing case number 401 of 2017 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. He can file prove and certificate for giving maintenance to his wife. 20. During cross-examination, he has stated that he is Senior Section Engineer in Railways and his basic salary is Rs. 53,000/- He had paid cash amount to the Owner of the land. He does not give the amount from the Bank to the applicant and he is meeting all the expenses of food purchased by his wife from “Friends Food Store” and he is paying the money. He has denied the suggestion that he is not giving any maintenance amount to the wife-children and has asserted that he is meeting the expenses of their education also. 21. Thus, after scrutinizing the evidence of R.W.-1, Irshadul Haque i.e .the petitioner, it is evident that he has stated for purchasing the land and constructing the house at city colony from his own expenses and also after taking loan from his brothers. However, the applicant i.e. opposite party no. 1 has threatened for giving him divorce. 22. Thus, assertion of the petitioner –husband has not been denied during cross-examination by his wife i.e. the opposite party no. 1 and he has not been confronted on this point on behalf of his wife-opposite party no. 2. 23. So far as the documentary is concerned, Ext.- A is certified copy of sale deed dated 25.05.2010 executed by Chunni Mahtain in faour of Ateka Sowaid wife of Irshadul Haque i.e. the petitioner on payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- for purchasing of land i.e. two katha twelve chatak i.e. 4.54 decimals of land over Mouza No. 4, Khata No. 54, Plot No. 1368. 24. Ext.-B is Affidavit of one Abdul Rashid dated 27.04.2018, who is the Owner of the said land i.e. Ext.-A and in which it has been stated that he has received the entire consideration amount from the petitioner- Irshadul Haque, who had got executed Kewala of the land in the name of his wife for Mouza No. 4, Khata No. 54, Plot No. 1368 New Khata No. 1151 area two katha twelve chatak. Therefore, Ext.-A and Ext.-B clearly show that the petitioner has paid the amount in question for purchasing the land and over which the house has also been constructed by the petitioner and wife-opposite party no. Therefore, Ext.-A and Ext.-B clearly show that the petitioner has paid the amount in question for purchasing the land and over which the house has also been constructed by the petitioner and wife-opposite party no. 1 has not led any oral or documentary evidence to rebut the assertion of the husband-petitioner. 25. Ext.-C to C/3 are the money receipts of electricity bill issued by JSEB, School Fees etc. 26. Ext.-D is certified copy of Order Sheet of Misc. Case No. 126/2017. 27. Ext.-E is photo copy of Mark Sheet of Aiman Fatima (i.e. daughter of the petitioner) of Carmel School whereas Ext.-F is photo copy of Mark Sheet of Mobashirul Haque i.e. son of the petitioner and Ext.-G is certified copy of Progress Card of Mobashirul Haque Mati. 28. Ext.-H is photo copy of the certified copy of order sheet of Misc. Case No. 219/2017 filed by the petitioner before the learned SDJM, Dhanbad under Section 39 of the Cr. P.C. for ousting him from his house for giving threatening through her brother Imran Kafil, IPS, SP, UP Cadre. 29. Ext.-I is photo copy of certified copy of Misc. Petition No. 219/2017 whereas Ext.-J is photo copy of certified copy of Sanha reported to Bhuli OP SDE No. 09 of 2017 and Ext.-K is photo copy of certified copy of Affidavit of petitioner- Irshadul Haque dated 03/06/2013 showing shifting to his residence from City Colony, Dhanbad to another place. 30. Ext.-L to L/16 respectively are the photo copies of Rent Receipts given by landlord of petitioner whereas Ext.-M is Affidavit of Sarfaraj Alam Ansari dated 01/05/2018 and Ext.-N is rent receipt of Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad in Form-B. 31. It has been held in the case of Abhilasha Versus Parkash and Ors. reported in (2021) 13 SCC 99 , at para 27 to 31, which are as follows:- “Para-27:- Muslim Law also recognises the obligation of father to maintain his daughters until they are married. Referring to Mulla’s Principle of Mohammedan Law, this Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Santra (Smt.), (2000) 5 SCC 182 in paragraph 40 held: (SCC p. 196) “40. Similarly, under the Mohammedan Law, a father is bound to maintain his sons until they have attained the age of puberty. He is also bound to maintain his daughters until they are married. Santra (Smt.), (2000) 5 SCC 182 in paragraph 40 held: (SCC p. 196) “40. Similarly, under the Mohammedan Law, a father is bound to maintain his sons until they have attained the age of puberty. He is also bound to maintain his daughters until they are married. [See: Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan Law (19th Edn.) page 300]” Para-28:- Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is nothing but recognition of principles of Hindu Law regarding maintenance of children and aged parents. Section 20(3) now makes it statutory obligation of a Hindu to maintain his or her daughter, who is unmarried and is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property. Para-29:- Section 20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 cast a statutory obligation on a Hindu to maintain his daughter who is unmarried and unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property. As noted above, Hindu Law prior to enactment of Act, 1956 always obliged a Hindu to maintain unmarried daughter, who is unable to maintain herself. The obligation, which is cast on the father to maintain his unmarried daughter, can be enforced by her against her father, if she is unable to maintain herself by enforcing her right under Section 20. Para-30:- We may also notice another judgment of this Court in Noor Saba Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Quasim, (1997) 6 SCC 233 , which was a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. A Muslim wife with her two daughters and a son filed an application claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The trial court allowed the maintenance to the wife and children from her husband. The husband after divorcing the wife filed application in the trial court seeking modification of the order in view of the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The trial court modified the order insofar as the grant of maintenance of wife was concerned but maintained the order of maintenance to each of the three minor children. The husband challenged the order by means of revision, which was dismissed by the Revisional Court. An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed in the High Court. The trial court modified the order insofar as the grant of maintenance of wife was concerned but maintained the order of maintenance to each of the three minor children. The husband challenged the order by means of revision, which was dismissed by the Revisional Court. An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed in the High Court. The High Court accepted the claim of husband and relying on provision of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, 1986 held that a Muslim wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her previous husband for her children only for a period of two years from the date of birth of the child concerned. The High Court held that minor children were not entitled for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. A special leave to appeal was filed questioning the judgment. This Court dealing with Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as Act, 1986 held that effect of a beneficial legislation like Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to be defeated except through clear provisions of a statute. This Court held that there is no conflict between the two provisions. Para-31:- This Court noticed the provisions of Section 3 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is relevant to refer to the following observations made by this Court in paragraph 7 of the above judgment: (Noor Saba Khatoon Case, SCC pp. 238-39) “7. ...Under Section 125, CrPC the maintenance of the children is obligatory on the father (irrespective of his religion) and as long as he is in a position to do so and the children have no independent means of their own, it remains his absolute obligation to provide for them. Insofar as children born of Muslim parents are concerned there is nothing in Section 125 CrPC which exempts a Muslim father from his obligation to maintain the children. These provisions are not affected by Clause (b) of Section 3(1) of the 1986 Act and indeed it would be unreasonable, unfair, inequitable and even preposterous to deny the benefit of Section 125 CrPC to the children only on the ground that they are born of Muslim parents. The effect of a beneficial legislation like Section 125 CrPC, cannot be allowed to be defeated except through clear provisions of a statute. The effect of a beneficial legislation like Section 125 CrPC, cannot be allowed to be defeated except through clear provisions of a statute. We do not find manifestation of any such intention in the 1986 Act to take away the independent rights of the children to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC where they are minor and are unable to maintain themselves. A Muslim father's obligation, like that of a Hindu father, to maintain his minor children as contained in Section 125 CrPC is absolute and is not at all affected by Section 3 (1)(b) of the 1986 Act.” (emphasis in original) 32. It has been held in the case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 that there is not straight jacket formula for deciding quantum of maintenance and it has been decided on the basis of evidence of the parties in each case separately in the evidence used by the parties. 33. It has been held in the case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 at Para-77, 78, 79, 80, 112 and 113, which are 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. 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 non-working 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 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 ablebodied 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 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.” 34. It appears that the learned Court below has been swayed by the fact that the petitioner is not maintaining his wife and children. However, the learned Court below has not considered the plea raised on behalf of the husband-petitioner. The Court was swayed by fact he is not paying any maintenance to his wife. The learned Court below has further assed the income of the Rs. 60,000/- per month and in the light of the same, the learned Court below has directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 1, wife and Rs. 5,000/- per month each to two children. 35. Section 125 (4) of the Cr. P. C. is as follows:- “Section 125(4) of the CrPC states that no Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband 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.” 36. 35. Section 125 (4) of the Cr. P. C. is as follows:- “Section 125(4) of the CrPC states that no Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband 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.” 36. It has been held in the case of Sutapa Banerjee Versus State of Jharkhand reported in 2012 (3) East Cr C 302 (Jhr.), at para 8 as follows:- “Para-8:- After having heard learned counsels for the parties and upon going through the impugned judgment, I find that on the basis of the evidence brought on record, the Court below has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not willing to live with her husband without any reasonable cause and the Court below has taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner herself in her cross-examination admitted that she was living at Deoghar for looking after her mother and maternal grandmother. I find that the finding of the learned Court below is based on the evidence on record and the same cannot be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. I also find that the Court below has taken into consideration the fact that opposite party No. 2- husband is always ready to keep the petitioner even after entering into a bond and living separately from his mother. The Court below has also taken into consideration the conciliation proceeding in which also the petitioner clearly refused to live with her husband.” 37. It further transpires that this case appears to be some dispute over the trivial issue and the petitioner appears to be annoyed with the opposite party no. 1 in view of the fact that she may have threatened to him on account of high post of her brother. This Court can debar the wife-opposite party no. 1 from any maintenance amount, but this will amount to undue hardship to the wife-opposite party no. 1 as in all the circumstances, she is maintaining her both child and who are also children of the petitioner. 38. It appears from the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has claimed to have taken voluntarily retirement form his service and living in a rented house and in support of the same, the petitioner has enclosed certain documents. 38. It appears from the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has claimed to have taken voluntarily retirement form his service and living in a rented house and in support of the same, the petitioner has enclosed certain documents. However, he has also paid Rs. 3,05,000/- to the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 for paying the same in Enforcement Case No. 31 of 2020. However, this is not the subject matter of this case and as such, this Court refrains itself from giving any finding. 39. It reveals that though the land has been purchased in the name of the opposite party no. 1-wife namely Ateka Sowaid, but the amount appeared to have been paid by the husband-petitioner- Irshadul Haque as there is no evidence on the part of the opposite party no. 1 that her family members had contributed any amount for purchasing the land in question and constructed the house over the land of 4.54 decimals. 40. It would appear that the petitioner has been subjected to harassment due to the acts of the wife-opposite party no. 1 and even wife has admitted during her cross-examination that she will not keep her husband in her residence. 41. In view of discussion made hereinabove, it is abundantly clear that wife-opposite party no. 1 does not want to live with the petitioner as she has not taken any steps to restore her conjugal relationship, rather she is living separately from the petitioner, but she is maintaining her two children. 42. Under the circumstances, so far as the maintenance awarded to Rs. 5,000/- each to the opposite party no. 2, Mobashirul Haque, i.e. son and opposite party no. 3, Aiman Fatima, i.e. daughter are concerned, the same is affirmed and maintenance amount will be payable from the date of filing of application instead of from the date of order. 43. It has been held in the case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 that the maintenance amount is payable from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. 44. Thus, the opposite party no. 1 i.e. the wife is not entitled to maintenance in view of the provisions of Section 125 (4) of the Cr. P. C. and as such, maintenance awarded to Rs. P. C. 44. Thus, the opposite party no. 1 i.e. the wife is not entitled to maintenance in view of the provisions of Section 125 (4) of the Cr. P. C. and as such, maintenance awarded to Rs. 10,000/- to the opposite party no.1, Ateka Sowaid, i.e. wife by the learned Court is set aside. However, the amount paid by the husband-petitioner to the wife-O. P. No. 1 will be subject to recovery, if paid any. However, order of maintenance awarded to Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- to the opposite party no. 2, Mobashirul Haque, i.e. son and opposite party no. 3, Aiman Fatima, i.e. daughter respectively is upheld. 45. However, the petitioner should continue to deposit school fee of his children and he will take all necessary steps to maintain them towards the fooding and other expenses. 46. Thus, this Criminal Revision No. 607 of 2020 is allowed in part. Pending I. A., if any, also sands disposed of.