Judgment J.M.L. Sinha, J. 1. THIS revision arises out of the judgment and order dated 30th June, 1977, passed by the First Additional Munsif Magistrate,, Pilibhit, directing the applicant to pay Rs. 150/- per month as maintenance for the opp. party no. 2, to pay Rs. 100/- as maintenance for his elder daughter Ranjit Kaur and to pay Rs. 50/- for each of the other three daughters as maintenance. In all the applicant was directed to pay Rs. 400/- per month as; maintenance. 2. THE facts giving rise to this revision, very briefly stated, are as follows : THE opposite party no. 2 was married to the applicant about 15 or 20 years ago. In the year 1974 the opposite party no. 2 moved an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that the applicant was a bad character, that he even maltreated her and that on 5-4-1973 he turned her and the four daughters outside his house. It was also alleged in the application that the opposite party no. 2 was not able either to bear her own expense or bear the expenses of education etc. of her children. According to the opposite party, the six monthly income of the applicant was about Rs. 10,000/-. THE application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. was resisted by the present applicant. THE learned Magistrate after recording the evidence of both parties accepted the case of opposite party no. 2 and directed the applicant to pay maintenance to her, as indicated above. It is against that order that the present revision is directed. Sri A. R. Dube, learned counsel for the applicant in the first instance contended that the learned Magistrate determined the amount to be paid by the applicant as maintenance to opposite party no. 2 and her children without first deciding the income of the applicant. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, this vitiates the entire order passed by the learned Magistrate. I regret my inability to accept this argument. 3. IT was alleged in the application that the applicant possessed cultivatory land in Pilibhit besides having a house and cultivatory land in Punjab and that the approximate income from the land was about Rs. 10,000/- per six month. In her statement on oath also Smt. Jagir Kaur, opposite party no. I regret my inability to accept this argument. 3. IT was alleged in the application that the applicant possessed cultivatory land in Pilibhit besides having a house and cultivatory land in Punjab and that the approximate income from the land was about Rs. 10,000/- per six month. In her statement on oath also Smt. Jagir Kaur, opposite party no. 2, made a statement to the effect that the applicant had about 10 acres of cultivatory land. She also filed extract from the khasra in support of that statement. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence adduced by each party recorded a finding to the effect that the applicant had 9.32 acres of land in village Piparia and that he also possessed cultivatory land besides a house in Punjab. At another stage in the judgment the learned Magistrate said that, after considering the evidence of the parties, he accepted the case of the complainant to be true. That part of the judgment can be interpreted to mean that the learned Magistrate accepted the allegations made by the opposite party no. 2 that the applicant had an approximate income of Rs. 10,000/- every six months from the land that he possessed. 4. IN the above view of the matter, it cannot be accepted that the learned Magistrate has recorded no finding regarding the means of the applicant before determining the amount to be paid by him as maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 and her children. Learned counsel referred me to the case of Ram Singh v. State, AIR 1963 Alld. 355, in support of his contention that it was necessary for the Magistrate to determine the income of the applicant before determining the amount of maintenance to be paid by him. The facts of the aforesaid case, however, appear to be different. In that case all that was shown was that the husband had some land jointly owned by him and other members of the family, besides having some cattle. It was in that context that the court observed as under : "The only finding which the Magistrate has given is that Ram Singh has eighty big has of land in joint cultivation and has also a number of cattle and a good house. It was in that context that the court observed as under : "The only finding which the Magistrate has given is that Ram Singh has eighty big has of land in joint cultivation and has also a number of cattle and a good house. He has not found as to how many persons are in joint cultivation with Ram Singh ; nor did the Magistrate find the profits of the 80 big has of land and the income of Ram Singh's share. Ram Singh may be having a number of cattle, but if the cattle are maintained only for the purposes of cultivation and are not a source of income by them selves, a reference to them can be of no help in fixing the amount of maintenance." 5. IN the instant case, as already stated above, there was allegation in the application moved by opposite party no. 2 that the applicant possessed about 10 acres of land in Pilibhit besides some land and house in Punjab. There was also evidence in support of that allegation and the court below accepted that allegation. It was nobody's case that the land was jointly owned by the applicant and his brothers. The observations in the case cited by the learned counsel for the applicant can, therefore, have no application in the present case. 6. LEARNED counsel for the applicant next urged that the learned Magistrate has recorded no finding to the effect that the opposite party no. 2 did not have the means to maintain herself. LEARNED counsel stressed that unless it was shown that the opposite party no. 2 did not have any means to maintain herself, no maintenance could be granted to her. Reliance for this argument was placed on two decisions of this Court, Man Mohan Singh v. Mahindra Kaur, 1976 AWC 335 and J. M. Dutta v. State of U. P., 1977 ACC 258. It is true that the learned Magistrate has recorded no express finding to the effect that the opposite party no. 2 was not able to maintain herself. It is, however, well settled that, if there is evidence on record to enable a court of appeal or revision to record a finding on the point in question, the case should not generally be remanded. On a perusal of the record I find that the opposite party no. 2 was not able to maintain herself. It is, however, well settled that, if there is evidence on record to enable a court of appeal or revision to record a finding on the point in question, the case should not generally be remanded. On a perusal of the record I find that the opposite party no. 2 clearly alleged in her application that she was neither able to maintain herself nor was she able to bear the expenses of education and maintenance of her children. Smt. Achcha Kaur PW 3, the mother of opposite party no. 2, made a categorical statement on oath to the effect that Smt. Jagir Kaur, opposite party no. 2 had no means to maintain herself. This part of her statement was not challenged in cross-examination. It would, therefore, follow that, besides there being allegation in that regard in the application under Section 125, Cr. P.C., there was unchallenged evidence on record in support of it, which established the fact that the applicant did not have any means to maintain herself or to maintain her children. Consequently, it would not be a proper exercise of discretion to remand the case to the court below for a finding being recorded thereon. 7. AS far the two cases cited by the learned counsel for the applicant it appears that in both those cases it was neither alleged in the application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. that the wife was not able to maintain herself nor was there any statement to that effect. Both the cases cited by the learned counsel for the applicant are thus clearly distinguishable. 8. LEARNED counsel for the applicant then urged that, in any case, the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Court below is excessive and is out of proportion. I regret my inability to accept the same. Profession of agriculture during the present period is quite remunerative. As already stated, this applicant has ten big has (?) of land in district Pilibhit besides some land in Punjab. In that back-ground the amount of Rs. 400/-, as determined by the court below to be paid as maintenance to opposite party no. 2 and to her children, cannot be said to be excessive. The revision, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed. The stay order dated 26th August, 1977, stands vacated. In that back-ground the amount of Rs. 400/-, as determined by the court below to be paid as maintenance to opposite party no. 2 and to her children, cannot be said to be excessive. The revision, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed. The stay order dated 26th August, 1977, stands vacated. If any amount has been deposited by the applicant in Court in compliance of the aforesaid order, it shall be paid to the opposite party no. 2. Revision dismissed.