JUDGMENT M.H. Hussain, J. - This reference has been made by the learned Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, recommending for the setting aside of the impugned order of the Magistrate, dated October 19, 1970 passed in proceedings under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code By the impugned order the Magistrate directed the applicant to pay Rs. 30 per month as maintenance allowance to his wife Kanthsri, opposite party. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the applicant went up in revision and the learned Sessions Judge has recommended for the setting aside of the order of the Magistrate on the ground inter alia that the wife Smt. Kanthsri has failed to prove that her husband Sileti Singh is possessed of property and has an income of his own; and further, that the Magistrate was not justified in granting the maintenance to the wife on the ground that the husband had levelled false charge of unchastity against his wife. In paras 3 and 4 of the written statement filed by Sileti Singh, specific allegations of unchastity, against his wife Smt. Kanthsri had been made. The Magistrate has recorded a finding that the allegation of illicit connection made by the husband has not been established. In paras 3 and 4 of the written statement Sileti Singh has stated that eight or nine months ago Smt. Kanthsri went away from his house and has not since then returned in spite of offer made by him. It is, therefore, clear from the own written statement of Sileti Singh that his wife,was not living with him. There is no assertion in the written statement of Sileti Singh that he gave any maintenance allowance to Smt. Kanthsri while she was away from his house. In the written statement no offer has been made for maintaining Smt. Kanthsri if she came back to the house of the applicant. The learned Sessions Judge was wrong in holding that the wife ought to have taken it as a ground in her application that on account of the false charge of unchastity levelled against her by her husband, she was entitled to live separately and claim maintenance. This is an incorrect view of the learned Sessions Judge. 2. The learned Sessions Judge was wrong in holding that the wife ought to have taken it as a ground in her application that on account of the false charge of unchastity levelled against her by her husband, she was entitled to live separately and claim maintenance. This is an incorrect view of the learned Sessions Judge. 2. Learned counsel has contended that the question of Smt. Kanthsri refusing to live with her husband on the ground of the false charge of unchastity levelled against her could only arise for consideration after an order awarding her maintenance is pissed and when the husband makes an offer to maintain her if she came to live with him. Learned counsel has relied on the proviso to sub- clause (3) of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code The learned counsel has also cited two cases State v. Mst. Anwari, AIR 1953 Nag. 133 and Mehrunnisa v. Noor Mohammad, 1970 AWR 593 . Both the cases cited above relate to the proviso to sub-clause (3) of section 488, Cr.P.C. and are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Neither sub-clause (3) nor its proviso which relate to the enforcement of an order already passed under sub-clause (1) of section 488 Cr.P.C., can be applicable to the present case. Smt. Kanthsri made an application for grant of maintenance on the ground that her husband Sileti Singh had turned her out and was not maintaining her and that he had married a second wife. This application was contested by Sileti Singh, who denied having entered into a second marriage and asserted that Smt. Kanthsri was living an unchaste life and was not entitled to maintenance. The Magistrate held on a perusal of the evidence on record that Sileti Singh had neglected to maintain his legally wedded wife, and further that he had failed to establish the charge of unchastity level- led against his wife. When deliberate allegation of unchastity is levelled against the wife to defeat the claim for maintenance and it remains unsubstantiated it will amount to legal cruelty entitling the wife to live separately and claim maintenance. When deliberate allegation of unchastity is levelled against the wife to defeat the claim for maintenance and it remains unsubstantiated it will amount to legal cruelty entitling the wife to live separately and claim maintenance. In the case of Pheku Singh v. Atraji Kaur, 1961 AWR 531, Broome J. relying on certain decisions of the High Courts of Bombay and 'Madras has held that the deliberate false allegation of unchastity would amount to legal cruelty sufficient to entitle the wife to live separately from her husband and claim maintenance. 3. The view of the Sessions judge that since Sileti Singh was possessed of no immovable property and earned his livelihood by manual labour, cannot be a just ground for the court to refuse passing an order for maintenance. Possession of property is not at all the criteria for awarding maintenance under section 488 Cr.P.C. So long as a man is able bodied and can work and earn his livelihood, it is his duty to support his wife. The amount of Rs. 30 granted as maintenance to the wife cannot be said to be excessive even though Sileti Singh may not be having any landed property in his own name. It is asserted by Sileti Singh that he earns his livelihood by doing manual labour. These days the average income from wages of an unskilled labourer cannot be less than Rs. 125 a month. Therefore, Sileti Singh is capable of paying the maintenance allowance of Rs. 30 per month to his wife Kanthsri. 4. For the reasons given above, the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge is rejected, and the impugned order of the learned Magistrate dated October 19. 1970 is affirmed.