ORDER :

Mrs. Nirupama, the learned counsel appears for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar No.4, the learned counsel appears for O.P. No.2.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 26-7-2016 by which he has been directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to his wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the minor daughter for their monthly allowance from the date of the application.

3. The Original Maintenance Petition No. 74 of 2013 was instituted on the application filed by the wife and the minor daughter of the petitioner seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month for the wife and Rs.5,000/- per month for the minor daughter.

4. In a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a husband has to show by leading evidence that he does not have sufficient means to maintain his wife [refer Rajathi v. C.Ganesan, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 326], however, a wife who asserts that she is unable to maintain herself is not required to establish that she is living in penury. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 316, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the expression "unable to maintain herself' does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can