JUDGMENT : M.B. Shah, J. The petitioner-wife has filed this criminal application against the judgment and order dated May 4, 1983 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural at Narol in Crim. Rcv. Appl. No. 25 of 1983 whereby he has partly allowed the revision application and has reduced the maintenance amount from Rs. 300 to Rs. 150. 2. The petitioner had filed Misc. Cr. Application No. 33 of 1982 under Section 125 of the Cri. Proc. Code before the Judicial Magistrate F. C. at Narol for maintenance contending that she was the legally married wife of the first respondent who had driven her out of her matrimonial house by ill-treating her. It is her say that she has three children out of the said marriage. One girl is residing with the respondent. It is stated that she was beaten and driven out of house on 19th January, 1980 and since then she was staying at her brother's house. 3. After recording necessary evidence, the learned Magistrate arrived at a conclusion that the first respondent had neglected or refused to maintain the petitioner. He also held that the petitioner was drawing salary of Rs. 727 per month from the bank and that he was having joint family and from which also he was driving income. He arrived at the conclusion that agricultural income would be not less than Rs. 2,000 per annum. After taking into consideration all these aspects, he directed that the petitioner is entitled to have maintenance at the rate of Rs 300 per month. 4. Against the said judgment and order the respondent had preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 25 of 1983. The learned Sessions Judge also arrived at a conclusion that respondent had neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner. However, he reduced the amount of maintenance on the ground that out of his salary of Rs 789-15, Rs. 511-35 were deducted the respondent had taken various loans He has not taken into consideration the agricultural income of the respondent. 5. In this petition, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction the learned Session Judge materially erred in reducing maintenance amount without considering the agricultural income of the respondent. 511-35 were deducted the respondent had taken various loans He has not taken into consideration the agricultural income of the respondent. 5. In this petition, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction the learned Session Judge materially erred in reducing maintenance amount without considering the agricultural income of the respondent. She further submitted that deduction taken into consideration by the learned Judge cannot be taken into consideration while arriving at the income of the respondent because respondent might have various loan for various purposes. 6. From the evidence on record which consists of the petitioner and that of respondent, it is clear that respondent is having agricultural land as admitted by him in his deposition. It is his say that he is a member of the joint family and the joint family owns land admeasuring seven to eight Bighas. In the cross-examination it was suggested to him that the holding of the joint family is 20 to 25 bighas of land which he has denied. He has also not admitted that his income from the agricultural land would be Rs. 4,000 to 5,000 per annum. But surprisingly, however, he has not stated the correct income from the agricultural land. He has not stated a single word that he took loan for giving medical treatment to his daughter. There is no evidence on record to show or suggest that he took loan for giving medical treatment to his daughter, yet the learned Sessions Judge, without applying his mind, has arrived at the conclusion that respondent might have taken loan for giving treatment 'o his daughter. The learned Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the agricultural income of the respondent and he has reduced the maintenance amount from Rs. 300 to Rs. 150 Therefore, there is error apparent on the face of the record which requires interference by this Court article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Respondent No. 1 is serving in a bank and that his salary is Rs. 789 and is also having agricultural income as assessed by the learned Magistrate at Rs 2,000 per annum. In my view, in these days of spiraling prices it would be just and reasonable to grant maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250 per month to the wife so that she can have atleast two meals a day. 8. 789 and is also having agricultural income as assessed by the learned Magistrate at Rs 2,000 per annum. In my view, in these days of spiraling prices it would be just and reasonable to grant maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250 per month to the wife so that she can have atleast two meals a day. 8. In the result the Special Criminal Application is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay the petitioner Rs 250 per month as maintenance allowance from the date of the application. The respondent is further directed to pay Rs. 250 as the costs of this application to the petitioner. Rule made absolute to the above extent. Application allowed.