Judgment Anand Prasad Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against the impugned, order of the Revision Court which has allowed the maintenance to the opposite party at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per month by reversing the order of the learned Magistrate who had rejected the claim of maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code). 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued as follows: (i) The petition as framed was not maintainable. (ii) There is no assertion that the opposite party was unable to maintain herself and also there is no adjudication of this fact. (iii) There is no indication of desertion on cruelty making the opposite party entitled for maintenance. (iv) There is no assertion and adjudication of the fact that the petitioner was capable of paying the maintenance. (v) As to whether the revision court could have negatived the findings and passed orders granting maintenance. 3. Learned counsel has cited several decisions and, in my opinion, it is not necessary to discuss them individually but the decisions are being mentioned only, quite agreeing with the principles laid down .on the points that a person becomes entitled for maintenance if there be desertion or separation mixed with cruelty, unable to maintain herself and not sufficient means to maintain and lastly that the person required to pay the maintenance must be capable of paying the same. The decisions are Kunna Sikaru Mambattikalathil Poppi Kovilamma V/s. Ravi Mandirathi Tharnasikkuru Arikkarai Ravivarmanunni Mooppil Eradi, Smt. Zubedabi V/s. Abdul Khader, and Manmohan Singh V/s. Smt. Mahindra Kaur. 4. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have been resisted by the learned counsel for the opposite-party. 5. The revisional court is perfectly competent to reverse the finding of the trial court if the finding be such which apparently may appear contrary to the facts and evidence available in the case and must be making out a case for grant of maintenance. In the instant case, in my opinion, it was just equitable and in the interest of justice to reverse the order of the learned Magistrate and, therefore, the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is not acceptable that the revisional court should not have annulled the finding of the trial court. 6. In the instant case, in my opinion, it was just equitable and in the interest of justice to reverse the order of the learned Magistrate and, therefore, the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is not acceptable that the revisional court should not have annulled the finding of the trial court. 6. Accepting the principle that the opposite party claimant must plead and also make out a case that she was unable to maintain herself. I find that essential is essentially present in this case. It has been clearly stated that her father is a poor man and she is living with her father and she has been reduced to the state of wretchedness. The clear intention of this assertion is that her father is unable to maintain herself and that will also include the situation that she was unable to maintain herself. If there would have been a situation that she was able to maintain herself, there was no occasion to say that her father is so poor, thus unable to maintain her. There are various expressions to express the feeling and that has to be appreciated with reference to the assertions made by the claimants. 7. The element of desertion and cruelty both have been pleaded and established by the evidence and, therefore, a case for grant of maintenance has been made out and absolutely there was no occasion for the trial court to defeat the claim on that ground. She has supported the element of neglect by saying that a Panchaiti was also held. Naturally, when such situation had arisen, that would definitely mean that the poor woman opposite party was desperately seeking justice from her husband. The allegations regarding the character of the opposite party appears to be only expressing errors and that appears to be specially created for defence and in absence of any proof of the same, the claim of maintenance rightly had not been defeated. The wild allegations made by the parties cannot be a basis to draw a firm conclusion unless there could be some visible sign of proof of the same and that being so, the proof being completely absent in this Case, the contention of the petitioner regarding certain conduct of the opposite party making her not capable of receiving the maintenance cannot be accepted. 8. 8. There is sufficient indication that the opposite party had no means of livelihood and there was no source of earning and under the circumstances rightly a case for grant of maintenance has been made out. 9. With regard to the capacity of the petitioner for making payment of maintenance, the opposite party has asserted the income of Rs. 1000.00 per month of the petitioner; whereas the petitioner claims earning only by tailoring at the rate of more than Rs. 8 to Rs. 10.00 per day. I am inclined to accept that there is no cogent and reliable evidence with regard to the earning of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 1000.00. Under the circumstances, the amount of maintenance granted appears to be a bit excessive. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence available, in my opinion, the amount of Rs. 75.00 per month will be just and equitable. 10. Thus the amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per month granted by the court below is hereby altered and reduced to Rs. 75.00 per month which will be payable by the petitioner to the opposite party. All the arrears must be paid in course of one year and the current maintenance will be paid in the first week of the next following month for which the maintenance becomes due. 11. With the above modification in the quantum of maintenance, this application is dismissed.