JUDGMENT B.D. Gupta, J. - This application in revision arises out of an order of maintenance passed by a I Class Magistrate in proceedings u/S. 488 of the CrPC. 2. There is no controversy that the applicant is the husband of the opposite party Smt. Gulab Devi. They were married about 16 years ago but as the wife did not bear any children differences arose and the wife left for her father's home and ultimately made an application u/S. 488 CrPC for an order of maintenance against the applicant. The case set forward by the wife was that on account of the misfortune that no child had been born to her, her husband started ill-treating her and had turned her out with the result that she took residence with her father and notwithstanding an attempt to bring about reconciliation the applicant refused to maintain her and had not maintained her for a considerable view. The (sic) by the applicant in reply was that on account of failure to give birth to any child the opposite-party herself had become ill-tempered, that he had never ill treated her or turned her out, that on a particular day when he was away on duty the wife had left his house for her father's place taking with her ornaments and clothes of considerable value and that, inspite of attempts by him to bring her back to his house, he had failed. 3. As regards the amount of maintenance, the case set forward by the wife was that the applicant was a driver in the Roadways Department getting a salary of about Rs. 150/- per month besides mileage. The husband, i.e., the applicant, admitted in the course of his statement that he was in receipt of a monthly pay of Rs. 148/- This was coupled with a statement that he had no other source of income. Further, the plea set forward by the applicant in the written statement was that with the aid of the money she had removed from his house she, along with her father and brother, resorted to the business of sale of miscellaneous goods at Melas and other festivals and thus she was in receipt of an income of Rs. 100/- per month. In the statement made by the applicant also he stated substantially to the same effect. 100/- per month. In the statement made by the applicant also he stated substantially to the same effect. Nothing has been pointed out to indicate that during the course of her statement before the learned Magistrate Smt. Gulab Devi denied the aforesaid allegation and learned counsel for the applicant has pointed to the fact apparent from an application dated June 6, 1968, on record, that an attempt on the part of the applicant, during the course of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate, to establish that at time the wife went away to her father's home she took away cash and ornaments and that she was in receipt in income in a sum of about Rs. 100/- per month, as mentioned earlier in this order, was not permitted by the learned Magistrate who appears to have taken the view that certain questions to the above officer which were sought to be permitted to be put to the wife were irrelevant in proceedings u/S. 488 CrPC. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, counsel appearing for the wife as also counsel appearing for the state and have gone into the matter at some length. As regards the liability to maintain, I am of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any impropriety and cannot be interfered with. As regards the amount of maintenance however, the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate appears to suffer from impropriety and must be set aside. 5. The judgments of the courts below make out that they were of the view that in fixing the amount of maintenance payable by a husband to his wife such income as the wife may have was irrelevant to the amount which the court may fix as payable by the husband to the wife. This does not appear to me to be a correct view. Numerous cases have been cited before me which support the proposition that in fixing the amount of maintenance to be paid by a husband to his wife the means of the wife, her income from property as also what she may herself be earning are also relevant factors. 6. Reference may be made to the decision of Blacker, J. in Mohd. 6. Reference may be made to the decision of Blacker, J. in Mohd. Ali alias Barkat Ram v. Mst, Sakina Begum alias Shakuntala, (1944) 45 CrLJ, 254 and the decision of Shripat Rao, J. in the case of Ahmad Ali sahib v. Sarfarajulnisa Begum, A.I.R. 1952 Hyderabad, 76. 7. The principles upon which the amount of alimony for the wife should be fixed have also been referred to and reference has been made to the following decisions:- (1 ) The decision of a Division Bench in the case of T.N. Kuriakose v. Mrs. Leelie Kuriakose, A.I.R. 1958 Madras, 340. (2) The decision of another Division Bench of the same High Court in the case of D.S. Seshadri v. Jayalakshmi, A.I.R. 1963 Madras, 283. (3) The decision of a Division Bench in the case of N. Subramanyam v. Mrs. M.G. Saraswathi, A.I.R. 1964 Mysore, 38. 8. It may be pointed out that in the case of D.S. Seshadri (supra) reference has been made to a passage from the judgment of Jessel M.R. in Robertson v. Robertson, (1883) PD 94 and Favagrossa to the effect that in the case of people of small means if a divorce took place between the husband and his wife who happened to be a washerwomen, she could very well go back to washing again. 9. Whilst I am not prepared to go to the length of holding that in case of maintenance u/S. 488 CrPC the wife should be held to be dis-entitled to maintenance if she has sufficient income of (sic) the limit time, I am not prepared to accept the view that in fixing the amount of maintenance payable by the husband to his wife, the income which the wife may herself have from property or by resorting to earning herself is altogether irrelevant. In the present case the learned Magistrate does not appear to have addressed himself to the plea set forward by the applicant that the wife had herself an income of about Rs. 100/- per month. In these circumstances I have no option but to set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated July 22, 1968, and to send back the case to that court for a re-hearing of the matter in the light of the observations made in the course of this order. 100/- per month. In these circumstances I have no option but to set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated July 22, 1968, and to send back the case to that court for a re-hearing of the matter in the light of the observations made in the course of this order. The learned Magistrate may confine himself to the question about the proper amount to be directed to be paid by the husband to the wife and, after permitting the parties an opportunity and taking such evidence as he may like, the learned Magistrate may record his finding as to the proper amount of maintenance payable by the applicant to his wife and pass orders accordingly. 10. This revision is allowed, the order of the learned Magistrate is set aside and the case is sent back to the court below to proceed in accordance with law in the light of the observations contained in this order, and pass final orders. 11. Let the record be sent down to the court below immediately.