JUDGMENT : JITENDRA KUMAR, J. The present Criminal Revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 16.04.2019, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamui in Maintenance Case No. 83M of 2015, whereby learned Family Court has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to his wife/Gudiya Devi and to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month each to both children viz., Krishna Kumar and Kanhaiya Kumar towards their maintenance. 2. The factual background of the case is that Gudiya Devi, Krishna Kumar and Kanhaiya Kumar filed one maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.PC in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamui against Bhola Vishwakarma, who is petitioner herein. The petitioners before the Family Court are O.P. No. 2, 3 & 4 herein. 3. As per the maintenance petition, O.P. No. 2/Gudiya Devi is legally wedded wife of the petitioner/Bhola Vishwakarma, as marriage between them was solemnized in the year, 2008 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After the marriage, Gudiya Devi joined the matrimonial home of her husband and out of the wedlock, two sons viz., Krishna Kumar and Kanhaiya Kumar were born. As per further averment, the applicant-wife was subjected to cruelty for additional dowry and ultimately, she was ousted from the matrimonial home along with her two children and her husband is not maintaining his wife and two minor children. 4. It is also stated that Gudiya Devi has no means to maintain herself and two minor children, whereas her husband/Bhola Vishwakarma has a business of wood and furniture and has landed property, having Rs. 5 lac annual income and hence, the applicant and her minor children had demanded Rs. 15,000/- per month for their maintenance. 5. On notice, the husband/Bhola Vishwakarma appeared before the Family Court and filed his written objection in which he has admitted that Gudiya Devi is his legally wedded wife and both the children are born out of the wedlock. However, he has claimed that the applicants were not entitled to get maintenance, because his wife is not willing to live with him in his matrimonial home. He has also denied the allegation of demand of dowry and torturing therefor. 6. It is also claimed by the husband/Bhola Vishwakarma that the parents of his wife want to keep him as a gharjamai, which is not acceptable to him, leading to matrimonial discord. He has also denied the allegation of demand of dowry and torturing therefor. 6. It is also claimed by the husband/Bhola Vishwakarma that the parents of his wife want to keep him as a gharjamai, which is not acceptable to him, leading to matrimonial discord. He has also claimed that his wife is educated and provides tuition and working as a Teacher in a private school and she also works in grill garage of her father, earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, whereas he himself is illiterate and has no source of income. He has no landed property or any business. For some time, he had stayed with his wife at his sasural and worked in the factory of her father, but he was not given any payment and hence, he left sasural. He is ready to keep his wife in his matrimonial home and he has filed one matrimonial petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but she has not appeared in the matrimonial proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He has also alleged that his wife has illicit relationship with his brother Dharmendra Kumar Vishwakarma. He has also filed one matrimonial case for dissolution of marriage with his wife. He has also alleged that his wife has illicit relationship with one Gopal Singh and hence, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. 7. During trial, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the applicants before the Family Court viz., Gopal Singh as P.W.-1, Anjani Verma as P.W.-2, Ramdhari Mistri as P.W.-3 and Gudiya Devi/applicant as P.W.-4. 8. The husband/opposite party, who is petitioner herein, has also examined himself as O.PW-1 before the Family Court, contesting the maintenance petition filed by his wife and children. 9. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the private opposite parties. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and erroneously passed the impugned order, whereby the maintenance was granted to the wife as well as two children. 11. He further submits that O.P. No. 2/wife is not entitled to get any maintenance, because she is having illicit relationship with his brother and one Gopal Singh. 12. 11. He further submits that O.P. No. 2/wife is not entitled to get any maintenance, because she is having illicit relationship with his brother and one Gopal Singh. 12. He further submits that the petitioner has also filed one matrimonial petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and the same has been decreed ex-parte. He further submits that even ex-parte decree of divorce has been granted by learned Family Court dissolving the marriage between him and his wife/Gudiya Devi. 13. He further submits that the petitioner is illiterate and has no source of income and he is just a Daily Wager. 14. However, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties defend the impugned order submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in it and hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. Learned counsel for the private Opposite Parties submits that Gudiya Devi has never any illicit relationship with anybody. As a matter of fact, she has been ousted from the matrimonial home along with her two minor children and hence, she is compelled to live at her maike. 16. He further submits that there is no proof regarding any relationship of P.W.-2 with anybody else. 17. He also submits that the ex-parte decrees under Sections 9 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act have been passed without any service of notice upon O.P. No. 2 herein. Moreover, none of the decrees has been brought on record by exhibiting the same. 18. He also submits that the petitioner-husband is a man of means and he is willfully neglectingto maintain his wife and two minor children. 19. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 20. I considered the submissions advanced by the parties and perused the materials on record. 21. I find that the marriage between Gudiya Devi and Bhola Vishwakarma is not disputed and even paternity of the two minor children viz., Krishna Kumar and Kanhaiya Kumar are not in dispute. 22. I further find that as per the testimony of the witnesses of Gudiya Devi, she is compelled to live at her maike on account of cruelty by her husband and being ousted from the matrimonial home along with her two minor children. 23. 22. I further find that as per the testimony of the witnesses of Gudiya Devi, she is compelled to live at her maike on account of cruelty by her husband and being ousted from the matrimonial home along with her two minor children. 23. I also find that the husband/Bhola Vishwakarma has not proved that Gudiya Devi has any source of income, though he has claimed in his pleadings that she is a Teacher in a private school. But in his cross-examination, he is unable to say which school she is teaching at. 24. I also find that ex-parte decrees under Sections 9 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act have been passed, but the same are not on record by way of being exhibited. Even otherwise, after perusal of two decrees, I find that ex-parte proceeding has been initiated in those proceedings without showing any service of notice upon Gudiya Devi. 25. I further find that even Gudiya Devi is not able to adduce any cogent evidence to show that her husband/Bhola Vishwakarma has any business or landed property. As such, Bhola Vishwakarma could be presumed to be earning at most minimum wages of skilled laborer, because he is a Carpenter and he is also duty bound to maintain his wife and two minor children. 26. I find that learned Family Court has granted maintenance @ Rs.5000/- per month to his wife/Gudiya Devi and Rs.1000/- each per month to both children and this quantum is challenged by Bhola Vishwakarma. 27. Here, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner has some substance that being a Daily Wager, he is not able to pay Rs.7000/- per month to his wife and both minor children. Hence, maintenance amount is liable to be reduced. 28. Hence, the quantum of maintenance payable to Gudiya Devi may be reduced by Rs.1,000/- and the petitioner may be directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month instead of Rs.5,000/- per month to Gudiya Devi towards her maintenance. 29. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed in part, modifying the impugned order, directing the petitioner/Bhola Vishwakarma to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to Gudiya Devi and Rs.1000/- per month to both minor children each towards their maintenance. 30. The quantum of maintenance payable to children could not be enhanced by this Court because there is no revision petition filed on behalf of Gudiya Devi or her children for such relief. 31. 30. The quantum of maintenance payable to children could not be enhanced by this Court because there is no revision petition filed on behalf of Gudiya Devi or her children for such relief. 31. The petitioner is directed to pay the whole arrear amount within six months in six equal monthly installments and in case, there is default on the part of the petitioner to pay monthly installments regarding arrear besides the monthly maintenance amount, learned Family Court is directed to take coercive measure to enforce the order.