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 apply for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Rajathi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the statement of a wife that she was unable to maintain herself would be enough and it would be for the husband to prove otherwise.

5. The marriage between the petitioner and O.P. No.1 was solemnized on 29.01.2007 and a girl child was born from the wedlock in the year 2008. The wife of the petitioner has stated that after birth of the female child suddenly behaviour of her in-laws changed towards her and the petitioner and his family members started teasing and taunting her and they started demanding Rs.50,000/- and one Hero-Honda motorcycle and in connection thereto subjected her to neglect, torture and cruelty. A criminal case vide P.C.R. Case No. 366 of 2001 was filed by O.P. No.1 and in that proceeding the petitioner and his family members gave undertaking to keep her properly in her matrimonial home, however, the petitioner started to demand Rs.1 lakh from her father on the pretext of expenses in prosecuting the criminal case. Her father gave Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner however he ousted her from the matrimonial home on 7.6.2013. She has filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 23 of 2012 seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, however, it was dismissed in default primarily because she believed that the matter has been settled. The petitioner who was the opposite party in the proceeding of maintenance case has taken a stand that his wife is a rustic and illiterate lady and he has no source of income to maintain her. He has separated from the family and he is working as a casual labour having monthly' income of Rs.3,000/-. The wife of the petitioner has examined five witnesses and the petitioner has also examined three witnesses during the trial. They have also led documentary evidence in support of their respective case.

6. A married women becomes entitled for maintenance from the date of her marriage and she is entitled to live a dignified life. In Vimala (K) v. Veeraswamy (K), reported in (1991) 2 SCC 375, the Honble Supreme Court has observed that the object behind Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. The purpose is to provide a speedy remedy to a destitute wife, minor child and the parents. On the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Family Court Judge has not considered the evidence led by him and awarded maintenance to the opposite parties in spite of the fact that he has no source of income, suffice would be to indicate that the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is civil in nature, is primarily a summary proceeding whereunder the strict rules of evidence are generally not appl