ORDER D.P. Uniyal, J. - This revision is directed against an order granting maintenance to the wife of the Applicant u/s 488 Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Smt. Gayatri Devi, the wife alleged that her husband ill-treated her and she was forced to leave his house and go to live with her father. She further alleged that the husband had married a second time and refused to maintain her. 3. The Applicant (husband) denied the allegations made by the wife. He rested his case on a deed of gift executed by his adoptive father Janki Prasad on 12-6-1963 in her favour. By this deed some land was gifted by Janki Prasad to his daughter-in-law as a consideration for her consent to the second marriage and also to provide for some kind of maintenance for her. Both the courts below held that the Applicant had neglected to maintain his wife and ill-treated her. 4. The learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that wife's application for maintenance was misconceived inasmuch as the husband had already made provision for her maintenance in the gift deed, As has been noticed above, the gift deed had been executed by the father-in-law and not by the husband. It is true that under the deed of gift aforesaid she was entitled to receive grain and other produce of the land for her use. The point however, is whether a mixed payment in cash and in kind on an annual basis is permissible under the provisions of Section 488 and whether it can amount to maintenance in law. Sub-section (1) of Section 488 reads thus: If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife...the Magistrate of the 1st class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife. The ordinary and natural meaning of section indicates that the order granting maintenance to the wife must be an order requiring payment of monthly allowance in terms of money; any other kind of payment would be no payment in the eye of law. In Mukta Vs. Dattu Mahadev, AIR 1924 Bom 332 it was held that Section 488 only permits the Court directing a monthly payment of money. An order directing a mixed payment in kind and in cash every year is contrary to the terms of the section. In Mukta Vs. Dattu Mahadev, AIR 1924 Bom 332 it was held that Section 488 only permits the Court directing a monthly payment of money. An order directing a mixed payment in kind and in cash every year is contrary to the terms of the section. To the same effect are the observations made in Ahirani Vali Lakha v. Govind Pola AIR 1953 Sau 2. The Calcutta High Court in Purnasashi Devi Vs. Nagendra Nath Bhattacharjyee, AIR 1950 Cal 465 emphasised that there is no provision in Section 488(1) for an order of payment of annual allowance, or any kind of annual payment and that payment of annual allowance by the husband to his wife constitutes no payment of maintenance allowance as contemplated by Section 488. 5. The next question that arises is whether the gift deed executed by Janki Prasad in favour of his daughter-in-law amounted to a compromise between the husband and the wife with respect to the maintenance allowance payable by the husband. The object of the father-in-law in transferring Cultivatory holding to his daughter-in-low was to persuade her to agree to her husband contracting the second marriage. The real purpose behind the transaction, therefore, was to appease her and to get over the difficulty created by the law in contracting a second marriage during the life time of first wife. In AIR 1931 532 (Lahore) it was held that u/s 488 only a husband can be made liable to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of the wife. Husband's father cannot be ordered to make such an allowance for the maintenance of his daughter-in-law. The contention of the learned Counsel that the gift deed operates as a bar to the present proceeding is clearly untenable and must be rejected. 6. This revision has no merit and it is accordingly rejected.