JUDGMENT : Heard Sri Jainendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Vijai Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. 2. By means of this instant criminal revision, the revisionist has assailed the impugned judgement and order dated 04.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Jaunpur, in Petition No. 666 of 2019, Jyoti Kumari and Another Vs. Ashish Jaiswal. 3. By the impugned judgement and order, the trial court has granted Rs.3,000/-per month to opposite party no. 2, Jyoti Kumari and Rs.2,000/-per month to her minor daughter, Niyati from the date of filing of application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. unless they become disqualified for getting maintenance. 4. Averment has been made by learned counsel for the revisionist that the trial court has passed the impugned judgement and order against the provisions of law and without proper appreciation of evidence on record. It has next been submitted that since the opposite party no. 2, Smt. Jyoti Kumari was voluntarily and without any reason residing away from the revisionist, she is not entitled for maintenance. It has also been submitted that as per ultrasound report of opposite party no. 2, she was pregnant before her marriage with the revisionist and opposite party no. 3, Niyati, daughter of opposite party no. 2, was not born from their wedlock, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance from him. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that the trial court has passed the impugned order after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the statutory law applicable to the case as interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court. There is no illegality and irregularity in the impugned order. It has next been submitted that due to the harassment of opposite party no. 2 by the revisionist and his family members for obtaining additional dowry, opposite party no. 2 is living separately from the revisionist with her daughter at her parental home. No maintenance is being provided by the revisionist to them. The revisionist has neither pleaded in his written statement filed against the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. nor in his evidence, oral or documentary adduced in support of his written statement that opposite party no. 3 is not born from his wedlock with opposite party no. 2, Smt. Jyoti Kumari. No maintenance is being provided by the revisionist to them. The revisionist has neither pleaded in his written statement filed against the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. nor in his evidence, oral or documentary adduced in support of his written statement that opposite party no. 3 is not born from his wedlock with opposite party no. 2, Smt. Jyoti Kumari. Therefore, at the stage of revision, such plea cannot be entertained and they shall not be taken into consideration. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have been heard. Perused the evidence available on the record of the revision including the impugned order passed by the trial court. 7. From the pleadings of revisionist and opposite party no. 2 in Petition No. 666 of 2019 u/s 125 Cr.P.C., it transpires that admittedly opposite party no. 2, Smt. Jyoti Kumari was married to revisionist, Ashish Jaiswal on 18.11.2017 according to Hindu rites and customs. The mother of opposite party no. 2 gave sufficient cash and other items as dowry to the revisionist according to her status. The revisionist and his parents were not satisfied with the dowry brought by opposite party no. 2. They started physically and mentally torturing her to compel her to bring Rs.2,00,000/-as additional dowry. On 21.08.2018, from the wedlock of revisionist and opposite party no. 2, a daughter, namely, Niyati was born. On the birth of the daughter, revisionist and his family members became annoyed with her and on 28.08.2019, after beating, abusing and depriving her from her stridhan, sent her to her parental home. Since then opposite party no. 2 is living with her daughter at her parental home. Opposite party no. 2 is a domestic woman and has no skills which may enable her to earn enough for her and for her maintenance as well as of her daughter. The husband of opposite party no. 2 is engaged in the wholesale business of scrap items from which he earns about Rs.50,000/-per month. He is not providing maintenance to opposite party no. 2 and her daughter. Opposite party no. 2 has prayed for maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/-per month for herself and Rs.5,000/-per month for her daughter. 8. In his written statement, revisionist has admitted that opposite party no. 2 is his legally wedded wife and from their wedlock, opposite party no. 3, Niyati was born. 2 and her daughter. Opposite party no. 2 has prayed for maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/-per month for herself and Rs.5,000/-per month for her daughter. 8. In his written statement, revisionist has admitted that opposite party no. 2 is his legally wedded wife and from their wedlock, opposite party no. 3, Niyati was born. Revisionist has denied that opposite party no. 2 was subjected to physical or mental harassment for compelling her to bring Rs.2,00,000/-or any amount as additional dowry. The revisionist/applicant has denied the allegations made by opposite party no. 2 against him regarding harassment of opposite party no. 2 and after beating her, left her at her parental home with her daughter. The revisionist/applicant has pleaded that she herself left her matrimonial home and is not willing to stay with him. He has mentioned in his written statement that she has filed false case of cruelty and dowry against him due to which he is suffering from depression. 9. It is desirable to consider statutory law relating to maintenance as provided u/s 125 Cr.P.C. as interpreted by the precedents of Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts. 10. The provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides for maintenance of wives, children and parents. The Section 125 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “125. 9. It is desirable to consider statutory law relating to maintenance as provided u/s 125 Cr.P.C. as interpreted by the precedents of Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts. 10. The provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides for maintenance of wives, children and parents. The Section 125 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.— (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain— (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the First Class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means: Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person. Explanation.—For the purposes of this Chapter— (a) “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875); is deemed not to have attained his majority; (b) “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. (2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be. (3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month's allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due : Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation.—If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be a just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him. (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, from her husband under this section 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. (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, from her husband under this section 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. (5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.” 11. In paragraph Nos. 37, 38, 39 and 40 of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another: (2021) 2 SCC 324 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:- “37. In [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] this Court held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife by providing her food, clothing and shelter by a speedy remedy. Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice especially enacted to protect women and children, and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. 38. Proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature. In [Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 321 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 200] this Court held that Section 125 CrPC was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children. Since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute. 39. Since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute. 39. The issue whether presumption of marriage arises when parties are in a live-in relationship for a long period of time, which would give rise to a claim under Section 125 CrPC came up for consideration in [Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 53 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 666. This judgment was referred to a larger Bench.] before the Supreme Court. It was held that where a man and a woman have cohabited for a long period of time, in the absence of legal necessities of a valid marriage, such a woman would be entitled to maintenance. A man should not be allowed to benefit from legal loopholes, by enjoying the advantages of a de facto marriage, without undertaking the duties and obligations of such marriage. A broad and expansive interpretation must be given to the term “wife”, to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time. Strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Court relied on the Malimath Committee Report on Reforms of Criminal Justice System published in 2003, which recommended that evidence regarding a man and woman living together for a reasonably long period, should be sufficient to draw the presumption of marriage. 40. The law presumes in favour of marriage, and against concubinage, when a man and woman cohabit continuously for a number of years. Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC such strict standard of proof is not necessary. [Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar, (2019) 11 SCC 491 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 732 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 242].” 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph Nos.77, 78, 79 and 80 of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another (supra) has provided for criteria for determining quantum of maintenance, which reads as under:- “77. [Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar, (2019) 11 SCC 491 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 732 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 242].” 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph Nos.77, 78, 79 and 80 of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another (supra) has provided for criteria for determining quantum of maintenance, which reads as under:- “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. 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]” 79. In [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. 80. 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. 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 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]” 13. After thoroughly discussing the numerous judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, the Apex Court in para-109 of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another (supra) held that maintenance should be provided from the date of application not from the date of order. The para-109 of the aforesaid judgement reads as under:- “109. The judgments hereinabove reveal the divergent views of different High Courts on the date from which maintenance must be awarded. Even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the court to grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of the order in Section 125(2) CrPC, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including Section 125 CrPC. In the practical working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is significant delay in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance for years on end. It would therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of the application.” 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another (supra) has held that the husband is bound to provide maintenance allowance to his wife and children which may be upto 25% of his monthly income. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another (supra) has held that the husband is bound to provide maintenance allowance to his wife and children which may be upto 25% of his monthly income. 15. From the pleadings and documents filed by the parties, the trial court has framed following four issues :- (i) Whether applicant is legally wedded wife of opposite party and due to sufficient reasons, she is residing away from her husband ? (ii) Whether applicant is capable of maintaining herself as well as her daughter ? (iii) Whether opposite party having sufficient source of income is still not maintaining his wife and daughter ? (iv) Whether applicants are entitled to maintenance from opposite party ? If so, what amount ? 16. Disposal of issue no. (i) : The revisionist, Ashish Jaiswal in his pleading in the written statement as well as in his oral evidence has admitted that opposite party no. 2, Smt. Jyoti Kumari is his legally wedded wife and from their wedlock, her daughter, opposite party no. 3, Niyati was born. 17. While deciding the second part of issue no. (i) that whether opposite party no. 2 is residing away from her husband without sufficient cause, the trial court has taken into consideration the pleadings of opposite party no. 2, Smt. Jyoti Kumari and revisionist, Ashish Jaiswal. The trial court has also analysed the oral and documentary evidence of both parties in this regard including complaint case filed by opposite party no. 2, Smt. Jyoti Kumari against the revisionist Ashish Jaiswal u/s 498-A I.P.C. and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act and Divorce Petition No. 1025 of 2019 u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the revisionist against opposite party no. 2 in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi and came to the conclusion that due to physical and mental harassment caused by demand of additional dowry by revisionist and his family members, the opposite party no. 2 was living away from her husband. The opposite party no. 2 had apprehension of danger to her life and she was justified in living away from him. The issue no. (i) was thus, rightly decided by the trial court in affirmative. 18. Disposal of issue nos. (ii) and (iii) : Since these two issues are based on same oral and documentary evidence, they are decided together. The opposite party no. 2 had apprehension of danger to her life and she was justified in living away from him. The issue no. (i) was thus, rightly decided by the trial court in affirmative. 18. Disposal of issue nos. (ii) and (iii) : Since these two issues are based on same oral and documentary evidence, they are decided together. The trial court has considered the pleading of opposite party no. 2 that she is a housewife and a woman of rural background. She has no professional skills and she is not able to maintain herself and her daughter from her own earnings and she is dependent for maintenance on her widowed mother. Opposite party no. 2 has also pleaded that her husband/revisionist is engaged in the wholesale business of scrap items from which he earns about Rs.50,000/-per month. The opposite party no. 2 has also pleaded that revisionist has a double-storey dwelling house and earns rent from it. On this point, revisionist has pleaded that his wife, opposite party no. 2 is M.A. pass and she is doing job in Mumbai and earning Rs.50,000/-per month. Opposite party no. 2 has also deposed in her evidence that since she is staying away from her husband, her husband has sent only Rs.5,000/-in her account and Rs.500/-through mobile banking but as her bank documents, aadhar card, etc. have been detained by her husband in her matrimonial home, she is not able to withdraw that amount from her account. The revisionist has not filed any documentary evidence in support of his pleadings that opposite party no. 2 is doing job in Mumbai and earning Rs.50,000/-per month as salary from it. The trial court did not believe the averments made by either party regarding income of both parties as neither party had filed any documentary evidence or other credible evidence in support of their income. From the aforesaid evidence, the trial court has come to the conclusion that opposite party no. 2, Smt. Jyoti Kumari has no earning from which she may be able to maintain herself and her minor daughter. 19. From the aforesaid evidence, the trial court has come to the conclusion that opposite party no. 2, Smt. Jyoti Kumari has no earning from which she may be able to maintain herself and her minor daughter. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shailja And Another vs. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199 has held: “we find that the High Court has proceeded on the basis that Appellant 1/wife was capable of earning and that is one of the reasons for reducing the maintenance granted to her by the Family Court. Whether Appellant 1 is capable of earning or whether she is actually earning are two different requirements. Merely because Appellant 1 is capable of earning is not, in our opinion, sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.” 20. Considering the above law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court merely on the ground that opposite party no. 2 is M.A. pass, no presumption can be drawn that she is earning sufficient money to maintain herself and her minor daughter. Thus the plea advanced on behalf of the revisionist (husband) is without any legal basis. 21. It is well settled law that mere averment of wife that she is not able to maintain herself and her child from her earning will shift the burden on her husband to rebut that she has sufficient income for maintenance of herself and her child. The revisionist has not adduced any credible oral or documentary evidence which may rebut the averment of his wife that she cannot maintain herself and her daughter from her income. 22. From the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, the trial court has concluded that the revisionist is a healthy and young man and he is capable to earn enough to maintain himself, his wife and minor daughter. 23. In the case of Chander Parkash vs. Shrimati Shila Rani: 1968 SCC Online Del 52, the Delhi High Court has held: “…..an able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able to reasonably maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodied person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable, for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child.” 24. In the present case, as the husband has not clearly disclosed to the court, as he ought, his monthly income which he admittedly gets, the presumption would be easily permissible against him. In his written statement, the revisionist has pleaded/deposed that his wife, opposite party no. 2 has registered criminal case as well as case under Domestic Violence Act against him. He is suffering from depression and is undergoing medical treatment for it, therefore, due to depression, he cannot do any work and earn money. But the revisionist has not produced any documentary evidence regarding prescription of doctor, bill vouchers/receipts of medicines purchased by him. Thus, mere bald averments of the revisionist that he is suffering from depression and consequently he is not able to earn anything, cannot be accepted. 25. From the above discussion, the trial court has rightly decided issue no. (ii) in favour of the wife and issue no. (iii) against the revisionist and has determined that the revisionist is capable of earning enough money, still he is not providing maintenance to his wife and minor daughter. 26. Disposal of issue no. (iv) : The trial court has alluded in its judgement that it is the social, moral and legal duty of a husband to maintain his wife and children properly. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a social welfare legislation which comes in the ambit of Article 15 (3) of Constitution of India. The statutory provision protects the wife and children from destitution and vagrancy. Maintenance includes expenses required for food, clothes, residence, medical expenses and education of children. The maintenance allowance should be sufficient to enable the wife and children to lead a life with dignity and decorum equal to that they were living with their husband/parents. The wife and children cannot be left in a helpless and hopeless state. 27. Taking cognizance of prevailing wages in the labour market, even an unskilled labourer earns about Rs.500/-per day, thus it can be presumed that revisionist may be earning about Rs.15,000/- per month from his wages. 28. The wife and children cannot be left in a helpless and hopeless state. 27. Taking cognizance of prevailing wages in the labour market, even an unskilled labourer earns about Rs.500/-per day, thus it can be presumed that revisionist may be earning about Rs.15,000/- per month from his wages. 28. Now, this Court has to consider whether the trial court has rightly provided Rs.3,000/-per month to Smt. Jyoti Kumari and Rs.2,000/-per month to her daughter, Niyati ? 29. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129 has held that 25% of the husband’s net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance allowance to the 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. 30. In Kalyan Dey Chaudhary Vs. Rita Dey Chaudhary Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has followed the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kulbhushan Kumar (supra) that 25% of net income of the husband should be paid to the wife as maintenance. 31. Thus, it will be just and reasonable to provide 1/3rd of the monthly income of the husband for maintenance of revisionist’s wife/opposite party no. 2 and his daughter, opposite party no. 3. Thus, the amount of total maintenance to be provided to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 can be determined as 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/-i.e. Rs.5,000/-. In the impugned judgement and order, considering all the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, the trial court has also granted Rs.3,000/-to opposite party no. 2 and Rs.2,000/- to opposite party no. 3. 32. From the above discussion, I am of the view that the trial court has rightly concluded that opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of revisionist and opposite party no. 3 is the daughter born from their wedlock. The trial court has rightly concluded that opposite party no. 2 has no earning to maintain herself and her minor daughter. The revisionist is capable of earning sufficient income to maintain his wife and minor daughter, still he is neglecting in maintaining them. The trial court has provided just and reasonable monthly maintenance allowance for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 i.e. wife and daughter of the revisionist. 33. 2 has no earning to maintain herself and her minor daughter. The revisionist is capable of earning sufficient income to maintain his wife and minor daughter, still he is neglecting in maintaining them. The trial court has provided just and reasonable monthly maintenance allowance for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 i.e. wife and daughter of the revisionist. 33. There is no merit in the criminal revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. 34. The criminal revision is accordingly, dismissed. 35. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for necessary action.