Judgment The revision petitioner has been filed by the wife against the order of the trial Court disallowing maintenance for her. The petitioner has filed a petition under Sec.125(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance for herself and for her daughter aged about 22 years on the ground that the husband had deserted her and married another wife. The respondent husband resisted the petition on the ground that he has not taken a second wife and that the petitioner is staying away from him for her own reasons. The learned Magistrate found, on evidence, that the petitioner wife is possessed of 5 acres of dry land which she got under a settlement deed from her father and therefore held that she is able to maintain herself. Consequently, the lower Court directed the respondent to pay maintenance for the daughter since at the rate of Rs.150 per mensem. The wife is aggrieved by the said order and she has come on revision. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the very approach of the lower Court while disallowing the maintenance for the wife is erroneous and reliance is placed on a ruling of the Supreme Court reported in BHAGWAN DUTT v. KAMLA DEVI, 1975 M.L.J.(CH.) 81: A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 83: (1975)1 S.C.J. 148. The learned counsel argued that no doubt the personal income of the wife may also be taken into consideration in fixing the quantum of maintenance but the fact that the wife is possessed of some properties is not a ground for altogether refusing maintenance to her. This contention is acceptable and, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, the personal income of the wife will be taken into consideration in fixing the quantum of maintenance, but then, the standard of living of the parties, their status, their background and their outlook in life have got to be considered, while fixing the maintenance. In other words, the quantum of maintenance must be commensurate with the standard of living which should be neither luxurious nor penurious. Bearing these principles in mind, let us look into the evidence in some detail. 3. The petitioner has examined herself as P.W.1 and also a respectable man of the village as P.W.2. The petitioner as P.W.1 admitted that her father had settled 5 acres of dry land on her which, according to her, fetch an annual income of Rs.300. Bearing these principles in mind, let us look into the evidence in some detail. 3. The petitioner has examined herself as P.W.1 and also a respectable man of the village as P.W.2. The petitioner as P.W.1 admitted that her father had settled 5 acres of dry land on her which, according to her, fetch an annual income of Rs.300. She further stated that the respondent husband is the only son of his parents is possessed of large items of immovable properties. In particular, she would state that her husband has 10 acres of garden land at Madhukarai and 16 acres of garden land at Nevakarai and that he also owns 7 or 8 shops which had been leased out to tenants for a minimum rent of Rs.500 per mensem. She then stated that her husband is also running a daily market. According to her, there are motor pumpsets in the fields and that the annual income for the respondent would be about a lakh of rupees. She therefore claimed a maintenance for herself at the rate of Rs.350 per mensem. 4. P.W.2 is the next witness who appears to be an elderly man aged about 64 hailing from the same village. Further, he is also related to the respondent through marriage. Nothing is suggested against this witness as to why he should come and speak falsely against the respondent. P.W.2 would state that the respondent has got agricultural lands besides a coconut thope and shops. He has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 regarding the income, namely, that the respondent would be getting not less than Rs. 1, 00, 000 per year. 5. As against this, the respondent has gone into the box and has given evidence. He admitted that his marriage took place in November, 1974 at Coimbatore in the prestigious President Hall. He says that he is a graduate and his evidence is that at the time of the marriage his father-in-law presented the girl with 75 sovereigns of jewels and also conducted the marriage at Coimbatore. R.W.1 admitted that he owns properties, but that he got them under a will from his grand-father. He further admitted that he is running a fertilizer shop known as “Siva Agencies”; but he would state that the income therefrom is very little. He also produced some account books like Ex.D10. R.W.1 admitted that he owns properties, but that he got them under a will from his grand-father. He further admitted that he is running a fertilizer shop known as “Siva Agencies”; but he would state that the income therefrom is very little. He also produced some account books like Ex.D10. Finally the added that he is prepared to take his wife back. It was elicited from R.W.1, that P.W.2 is a respectable man of the village and that there was no illfeeling or grudge between him and the said witness. It was also elicited that there are motor and pumpsets in the garden lands and that he has wet lands. However, he would add that the income from that item of the lands is only Rs.3, 000 per year. The income, according to him, from the fertiliser shop would be Rs.10, 000 per year. It is clear from his evidence that he has grossly under estimated his income bearing in mind that the properties are valuable and situated in Coimbatore District. It was also elicited that he owns a number of shops which had been leased out to tenants. Taking an over-all picture of the properties and the business of the respondent, I am inclined to think that his annual income is not less than Rs.50, 000. 6. It is noticed from the evidence of that the parties are respectable people and also educated. As already pointed out, the respondent is a graduate and is possessed of substantial immovable properties and the marriage itself appears to have taken place in quite a grand style. Taking all these factors into consideration and the status of the parties and their standard of living, a reasonable maintenance has to be fixed for the wife. The respondent has not even whispered in his evidence about the income from the five acres of dry land gifted to the petitioner by her father. Therefore, even taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner owns about five acres of dry land which she got from her father, it is clear that she cannot maintain herself with the income derived therefrom especially when she is a young housewife, who cannot do personal cultivation. She has to depend on others and the income from her lands will not be adequate for her maintenance. Her husband is well off and is having a substantial income. She has to depend on others and the income from her lands will not be adequate for her maintenance. Her husband is well off and is having a substantial income. In this connection, it must also be remembered that the respondent appears to have taken a second wife after discarding the petitioner. The marriage between the parties took place in 1974 and the evidence is that the respondent has taken a second wife in 1979. P.W.2 who is a relation of the second wife of the respondent has also given evidence, on that aspect. It is also noticed that the petitioner has preferred a complaint of bigamy against the respondent and the latter was convicted by the trial Court, though he was acquitted by the Appellate Court. Though the offence has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, it is clear from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the respondent is merrily living with another woman. This by itself will entitle the petitioner for maintenance. 7. There is one other reason which is in favour of the petitioner. The disharmony between the parties is on account of the dispute regarding some jewels which the petitioner’s father had presented to the girl at the time of the marriage. Admittedly, there was a panchayat wherein the respondent insisted on his wife bringing back all the jewels which her father had presented at the time of the marriage. This seems to be the background for the husband to discard his wife and he had taken another woman and is living with her. Therefore, viewed both legally and morally, the petitioner is entitled to separate maintenance at the hands of her prosperous husband consistent with her status. 8. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.350 per mensem as maintenance for herself and Rs.150 for her girl child. The maintenance for the daughter has been allowed by the trial Court. Taking into consideration that the petitioner is possessed of five acres of dry land. I think it just and proper to fix her maintenance at Rs.250 per mensem and this amount will be paid by the respondent from the date of her original petition, namely 21.10.1980. It may also be stated that in this case even when the respondent has been served with the notice, he has not even cared to contest the revision and this incidently shows his contemptuous attitude towards his wife. It may also be stated that in this case even when the respondent has been served with the notice, he has not even cared to contest the revision and this incidently shows his contemptuous attitude towards his wife. For all these reasons, the criminal revision petition is allowed and the petitioner will be entitled to maintenance from the respondent at the rate of Rs.250 per mensem from 21.10. 1980, the date of her petition.