JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The present revision is directed against the order dated11.12.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandi, District Mandi (learned Trial Court), vide which the petition filed by the respondents (applicants before learned Trial Court) was allowed and the petitioner (respondent before learned Trial Court) was directed to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- to present respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- each to the present respondents No. 2, 3 and 5 from the date of filing of the application. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience). 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the applicants filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.4), Mandi, District Mandi, seeking maintenance from the respondent. This petition was allowed on 19.01.2016. Maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month was awarded to applicant No.1, maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month was awarded to applicant No.2 and maintenance of Rs.500/- per month each was awarded to applicants No. 3 to 5. It was asserted that the prices of the daily items had increased. Applicants No. 2 to 5 were studying in higher classes and the monthly maintenance fixed in the year 2016 became insufÏcient to maintain the applicants. The income of the respondent had also increased to Rs.40,000/- since 2013, the date of filing of the original petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it was prayed that the maintenance be enhanced to Rs.25000/- in equal shares. 3. The respondent opposed the petition by asserting that he was a poor person. Applicant No.4 has been residing with him since April 2022. Applicant No.2 had completed her education. Applicant No.1 was working as a labourer, and she was also selling milk. Her monthly income from all sources was more than Rs.20,000/-. The respondent was unemployed and he had no source of income. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4. Rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and afÏrming those of the petition was filed. 5. The evidence was led before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court held that the respondent admitted in his cross- examination that the prices of essential goods had significantly increased since 2013. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4. Rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and afÏrming those of the petition was filed. 5. The evidence was led before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court held that the respondent admitted in his cross- examination that the prices of essential goods had significantly increased since 2013. Applicants No.2, 3 and 5 had grown up and their needs had increased. The respondent was an able-bodied person and if the Notification issued by the State Government fixing the minimum wages was considered, the respondent could earn a minimum salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. Therefore, the application was partly allowed and the monthly maintenance mentioned above was awarded to the applicants. 6. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Trial Court passed the order based on surmises and conjectures. Applicant No.1 admitted that she had 4-5 cows with her and she used to sell milk. She also admitted that she was working under MGNREGA and that her daughter Anjali had passed the 10+2 examination. She also stated that the respondent used to earn Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month and she was residing in a newly constructed house. This statement was ignored by the learned Trial Court. The respondent is suffering from various ailments. His mother is a patient of breast cancer. She requires money for her treatment. Only the applicant, Sushma, was going to the school. The respondent was bearing her education expenses. Applicant No.1 was earning more money than the respondent. Even if the income of the respondent is taken to be Rs.12,000/- per month, he cannot pay Rs.8,500/- per month to the applicants. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 7. We have heard Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in enhancing the maintenance. The petitioner is unable to earn anything. He is suffering from various ailments. His mother is a patient of breast cancer. She requires money for her treatment. These facts were ignored by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the enhanced maintenance awarded by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 8. The petitioner is unable to earn anything. He is suffering from various ailments. His mother is a patient of breast cancer. She requires money for her treatment. These facts were ignored by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the enhanced maintenance awarded by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 8. We have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 9. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1015: 2009 SCC OnLine SC 1214 that the Court exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot reappreciate the facts unless there is some perversity. It was observed: “9. So far as Issue 1 is concerned i.e. as to whether the appellant got married to Smt Ranju Sarma, is a pure question of fact. All three courts below have given concurrent findings regarding the factum of marriage and its validity. It has been held to be a valid marriage. It is a settled legal proposition that if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of reappreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be perverse. The higher court does not sit as a regular court of appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. Such a court cannot embark upon the fruitless task of determining the issues by reappreciating the evidence.” 10. This position was reiterated in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687: (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986: 2012 SCC OnLine SC 724 wherein it was observed: 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. 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 bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with the 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 scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with the 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. 11. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh , (2022) 8 SCC 204 : (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 348: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 786 that the revisional court is not an appellate court and it can only rectify the patent defect, errors of jurisdiction or the law. It was observed at page 207: - “10. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at the outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two courts after a detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record. The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction like the appellate court, and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short “CrPC”) vests jurisdiction to satisfy itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error, which is to be determined on the merits of individual cases. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings. 12. There has to be a well-founded error, which is to be determined on the merits of individual cases. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings. 12. This position was reiterated in State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294, wherein it was observed: “13. The power and jurisdiction of the Higher Court under Section 397 Cr. P.C., which vests the court with the power to call for and examine records of an inferior court, is for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularities of any proceeding 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 or the perversity which has crept into such proceedings. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra, (2012) 9 SCC 460 , where the scope of Section 397 has been considered and succinctly explained 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. 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, bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with the 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. 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 as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much-advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC.” 13. The present revision has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. The respondent admitted in his cross-examination that the prices of essential commodities had increased since 2013. Therefore, the plea of the applicants that the situation had changed since the award of the earlier maintenance was duly proved on the record. 15. Reliance was placed upon the admission made by applicant No.1 that she was working in MGNREGA and had 3-4 cows to submit that applicant No.1 had sufÏcient income to maintain herself, and she was not entitled to maintenance. This submission is not acceptable. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajathi v. C. Ganesan, (1999) 6 SCC 326 that words unable to maintain herself would include the means available to the wife when she was living with her husband and does not include the efforts made by her after desertion to survive. It was observed: “The words "unable to maintain herself" would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within themselves the efforts made by the wife after the desertion to survive somehow. Section 125 is enacted on the premise that it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, children and parents. Section 125 is enacted on the premise that it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, children and parents. It will, therefore, be for him to show that he has no sufÏcient means to discharge his obligation and that he did not neglect or refuse to maintain them or any one of them.” 16. This position was reiterated in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324: (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 220: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 903 wherein it was observed: 90. The courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments: 90.1. In Shailja v. Khobbanna [ Shailja v. Khobbanna (2018) 12 SCC 199 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 308 ; See also the decision of the Karnataka High Court in P. Suresh v. S. Deepa, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 8848: 2016 Cri LJ 4794 (Kar) ], this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufÏcient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufÏcient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. [ Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547: (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356 ] Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival. [ Vipul Lakhanpal v. Pooja Sharma, 2015 SCC OnLine HP 1252: 2015 Cri LJ 3451 90.2. In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753: (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589 ] the wife had a postgraduate degree and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufÏcient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. 90.3. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufÏcient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. 90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale [Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694] while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589] , held that neither the mere potential to earn nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufÏcient to deny the claim of maintenance. 90.4. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufÏcient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufÏciently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani [Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52: AIR 1968 Del 174 ] . The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufÏcient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the court. 90.5. This Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan [Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705: (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 274 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 785] cited the judgment in Chander Parkash [Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52: AIR 1968 Del 174] with approval, and held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife. 17. Therefore, the maintenance could not have been denied to applicant No.1, because she was making some efforts to survive after she was deserted by the respondent. 18. The learned Trial Court noticed that the minimum wages fixed by the State Government were Rs.12,000/- per month. As per the Notification issued by the State Government the minimum wages w.e.f. 01.04.2023 have been enhanced to Rs.375/- per day or Rs.11,250/- per month. 18. The learned Trial Court noticed that the minimum wages fixed by the State Government were Rs.12,000/- per month. As per the Notification issued by the State Government the minimum wages w.e.f. 01.04.2023 have been enhanced to Rs.375/- per day or Rs.11,250/- per month. In addition to this, applicant No.1 asserted that the respondent is plying a vehicle and earns money from the same. The learned Trial Court also noticed in para 25 of the order the plea of the respondent that he had closed the business and was no longer engaged in a profitable occupation. However, the respondent failed to present evidence to this effect. Since it was not disputed that the respondent was running a business; therefore, the burden was upon him to show that the business had closed and he was not running any business. In the absence of any satisfactory evidence, the learned Trial Court was justified in calculating the income of the respondent based on the guesswork. Keeping in view the minimum wage of Rs.11,250/- and the fact that the respondent was earlier running a business, the income of Rs.12,000/- assessed by the learned Trial Court cannot be said to be excessive. 19. It was submitted that the respondent is suffering from various ailments. He has filed the prescription slips before this Court to establish this fact. However, the prescription slips clearly show that the respondent was complaining of backache for 2-3 days and one day before the prescription, which cannot be said to be any disease. Therefore, his plea that he is suffering from various ailments and unable to work cannot be accepted. 20. The respondent also filed a medical certificate before this Court to show that his mother was suffering from cancer of the left breast. However, he has not filed any details of the expenses incurred by him on the treatment of his mother. There is no evidence that the mother does not have any independent income. Thus, the respondent cannot take advantage of the ailment of his mother. 21. The respondent stated that his daughter Reeta (applicant No.2) had completed her education by passing her 10+2 examination. Passing of 10+2 examination is not the completion of the education, as a person can pursue graduation and post- graduation. Thus, the respondent cannot take advantage of the ailment of his mother. 21. The respondent stated that his daughter Reeta (applicant No.2) had completed her education by passing her 10+2 examination. Passing of 10+2 examination is not the completion of the education, as a person can pursue graduation and post- graduation. Therefore, the plea taken by the respondent that applicant No.2 had completed her studies and did not require any money for her higher studies will not help him. 22. The learned Trial Court had rightly noticed that the respondent is an able-bodied person, who is bound to maintain his wife. He cannot shirk from his moral responsibility on the ground that he is not employed. 23. The learned Trial Court had awarded the monthly maintenance of Rs.2,500/- to applicant No.1, and Rs.2000/- each to applicants No. 2, 3 and 5, which cannot be said to be excessive. This is a nominal increase from the original maintenance awarded in the year 2016. 24. In view of the above, no infirmity has been pointed out in the order passed by the learned Trial Court justifying the interference by this Court. Hence, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 25. The pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.