( 1 ) ). Petitioners herein are the original applicants, who claimed maintenance by invoking the aids of the provisions of Sec. 125 of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973 ("code" for short, hereinafter) from respondent No. 1 herein/original opponent, by filing a Misc. Criminal Application No. 30 of 1987. Petitioner No. 1 is the wife and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor children of the opponent. The wife claimed Rs. 400. 00 for her maintenance and also claimed rs. 300/- by way of maintenance for each child per month from the opponent.

( 2 ) ). She inter alia contended that her husband is a man of means and doing wholesale business of kerosene. She further contended that her husband is also owning one taxi-rickshaw and also some building. According to her contention, her husband was earning Rs. 10,000. 00 to Rs. 12,000. 00 per month. She was unable to maintain herself and her two children. She was staying separate. Therefore she claimed maintenance from the opponent for herself and for two children by filing application in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate. First Class, at Jamnagar.

( 3 ) ). Opponent/husband appeared and resisted the claim for maintenance, allegations made in the application for maintenance were denied. It was denied that he was earning Rs. 10,000. 00 to Rs. 12,000. 00 a month. The opponent/husband contended that he is a small hawker selling kerosene. He denied to have possessed or owned any immovable property of vehicle.

( 4 ) ). On assessment of evidence, the learned Magistrate was pleased to award rs. 100/- to the wife and Rs. 50. 00 to each minor child by way of maintenance from the date of the application.

( 5 ) ). Being aggrieved by the said order of maintenance, both the parties preferred revision applications. Original applicants/wife and minor children filed criminal Revision Application No. 76 of 1987 and the original opponent/husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 96 of 1987 before the Sessions Judge, at Jamnagar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, at Jamnagar, was pleased to dismiss both the revision applications without cost on 21-10-1989.

( 6 ) ). Being dissatised, the original applicants have, now, come up before this court challenging the legality and validity of the quantum of maintenance order passed by the learned Magistrate, by filing this petition.

( 7 ) ). Learned Counsel for the respondent/original opponent contended that in view of the limited scope in the present petition, the petition is required to be rejected. It is true that the jurisdictional sweep of this Court in this petition is very much circumscribed. Unless and until illegality, misreading or perversity is, successfully pointed out, this Court would be at loath to interfere with the impugned order of maintenance.

( 8 ) ). The learned Counsel for the petitioner herein, vehemently, contended that the fixation of quantum of maintenance by the learned Magistrate is not only perverse but is illegal. He further contended that this is most appropriate case to interfere with and enhance the quantum of maintenance.

( 9 ) ). Having examined the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is satisfied that the finding with regard to the quantum of maintenance arrived at by the learned Magistrate and subsequently confirmed by the learned additional Sessions Judge, at Jamnagar is, totally, perverse and requires to be interfered with.

( 10 ) ). The marriage between the husband and wife took place 14 years before filing of the petition for maintenance. There is no dispute about the fact that the wife is living separate at her brothers place. The original applicants/wife and minor children have no separate source of income of her their own. The wife is unable to maintenance herself. She is staying separate from her husband with two minor children. She is shouldering the responsibility of maintaining the minors and the minors are school going children. Minor son "sachin" was aged about 12 years