G.M. LODHA, J.—This is a miscellaneous petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. read with section 125 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dt. 18. 10. 86, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota, where he confirmed the order passed by the Addl, Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kota dt. 23rd August, 1986 rejecting the application of the non-applicant under section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. Mr. Bhargava learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gupta for the non-petitioner prayed that instead of deciding the case for grant of interim maintenance the application for reviewing the entire case may be decided as the points raised are very short. 3. I have given the thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgments of the lower courts. There is no doubt and it is common ground that the husband and wife are living separately and litigation is going on between them as admitted by Mr. Gupta on the ground of cruelty of the wife and the same is also pending. In view of the above bedrock the consideration of application for maintenance is well founded. The only question is whether the husband has got sufficient means to pay maintenance as contemplated by section 125 Cr.P.C. Mr. Gupta pointed out that the finding of the lower courts is that the husband is a student of M. Com, and except for a short interval period when he was employed in Bank he is out of employment. Mr. Bhargava apprehending the above submissions of Mr. Gupta has come out with an important dimension of the Branch of law by contending that the Manus mandate in this respect is that beg, borrow, or steal, but you must maintain your wife. In this regard he has pointed out the judgment of the Orissa High Court of Honble Justice N.C. Patnaik reported in (1) in which this principle have been affirmed and confirmed. Para 6 of the above decision reads as under:- "Sri Bidhaya Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Magistrate did not keep the law in view while disposing of the application of the petitioner and drew my attention to the case of Sri Raja Bommadevara Raja Lakshmi Dave Amma Gari v. Sri Raja B. Naganna Naidu Bahadur Zamindar Garu AIR 1925 Mad. 757 where their Lordships held:- "The obligation of a husband to maintain his wife is one arising out of the status of marriage. It is a liability created by the Hindu Law, in respect of the jural relations of a Hindu family...and to Art. 554 of Mullas Hindu Law. "A wife is entitled to be maintained by her husband, whether he possesses property or not. Mann as cited in Mitakshara, has enjoined: "The aged parents, a virtuous wife and an infant child must be maintained even by doing a hundered misdeeds." "The obligation to support the wife is a personal obligation attaching from the moment of marriage. It is independent of possession of property. (Maynes Hindu Law, 11th Edition 818)." 4. The learned Judge has given new dimension to the phraseology used in section 125 Cr.P.C. by holding that the expression means does not signify only visible means such as real property or definite employment. According to him if a man is healthy and able-bodied he must be held to be possessed of means to support his wife and child etc. Relying upon the earlier judgments of (2) and (3) it was held that even if the husband may be insolvent or a professional beggar or a minor or a monk, but he must support his wife so long as he is able bodied and can make out his livelihood. 5. In Chander Prakash Bodh Raj. Vs. Shila Rani Chander Prakash (4) the Honble the Chief Justice I.D. Dua as he then was affirmed the same proposition and held that an able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. 6. The learned Judge in the Orissa case spelled out the object of section 125 Cr.P.C. and observed that:- "The question that arises next is what should be the amount of maintenance? The principles are to be kept in mind: "The object of the provisions being to prevent bagrancy and destitution. It has to be found out as to what is required by the wife to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the family. The principles are to be kept in mind: "The object of the provisions being to prevent bagrancy and destitution. It has to be found out as to what is required by the wife to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the family. The needs and requirements of the wife, child or parents for a moderate living, the earnings of the husband son or father or his capacity to earn and his commitments are relevant factors". 7. I have got no hesitation in holding that the above principles carved out in the various judgments of the Orissa High Court, Delhi High Court holds the field even now and lays down good law for the guidance of the court in the matter of maintenance to wife. 8. That being so rejection of the application on the sole ground that even though the husband is quite competent and physically fit and educated enough to earn his livelihood and in fact he has earned for some period maintenance should not be granted because it has not been proved that he is earning thereafter, cannot be confirmed. Means have been rightly defined to mean capability, ability and not actually earning. It is true that the wife cannot be left high and dry by the husband, to earn and on not getting employment to depend upon his fathers property for his livelihood. There is no doubt that the student of M. Com. and studying in higher studies can certainly earn and the basic fact remains that he is liable and responsible to maintain the wife. If he has to maintain wife when he lives jointly with her and performed matrimonial relations then the law further extends this liability and responsibility to maintain her when she lives separately on the husbands negligence or refusal to maintain wife. 9. Mr. Gupta pointed out that in the present case on account of the wrong behaviour of the father of the wife the two spouse husband and wife are living separately. This is a point on which I would not express any opinion. 9. Mr. Gupta pointed out that in the present case on account of the wrong behaviour of the father of the wife the two spouse husband and wife are living separately. This is a point on which I would not express any opinion. It may or may not be correct but the basic fact remains that husband and wife are living separately on the alleged ground of cruelty and therefore, for the time being their physical separation is obtained and cannot be avoided, unless good senses prevails on either of them or both of them. If that happens the payment of maintenance should be stopped and there must be no problem. The husband would maintain her separately as a wife and living together and the courts would be liable for giving direction for maintenance on considering the case of divorce or judicial separation which are result of the matrimonial fued between husband and wife. Consequently, I am of the opinion that two courts below have acted in a manner which is contrary to section 125 Cr.P.C. and interference under section 482 Cr. P. C. is necessary to give effect to the provisions of section 125 Cr.P.C. 10. The next question is what should be the amount of maintenance. Obviously whatever has come on the record is about the income of the husband when he was Bank employee but the exact amount is not known. 11. The petitioner is an educated young man who is already a graduate and is on the verge of becoming post-graduate and having good family background. Confronted with this situation where there is no definite amount proved or alleged and following the principles laid down in the above judgment looking to the general scales of salary or wages it would not be unfair to accept that the husband is supposed to have means of earning about Rs. 700 per month to Rs. 1, 000/-. In that view of the matter since as yet there is no exact precise income which the husband is already earning I am directing the payment of the maintenance on the basis of his capacity to earn. I direct for the time being from the date of the application of the maintenance till exact earning of the husband is known when the matter can be reviewed by the Magistrate on the application of either party the husband would pay to wife Rs. I direct for the time being from the date of the application of the maintenance till exact earning of the husband is known when the matter can be reviewed by the Magistrate on the application of either party the husband would pay to wife Rs. 150/- per month. 12. Mr. Bhargava has relied upon the following judgments in support of his plea that the consideration in such cases should not be as to what the wife can earn but basically fundamentally the husband should maintain the wife: In Vimal Vs. Subumar Anna Patil (5) and Abdulmunaf vs. Salima (6). 13. The Great National Poet Maithili Sharan Gupt devoted important part in his Works on describing the socio-economic conditions, problems, & plights of women, lrh mfeZyk jk/kkdqat] dSd;h] ;kksnk] ljLorh] tkfeuh ¼1½ ekDldh ifRu- In Yashodra & Vishnupriya amongst others his classical description of Indian womens may be noticed as relevant bedrock in "maintenance" social philosophy as a great social need of Indian women even now- ^^vcyk thou gk; rqEgkjh ;gh dgkuh vkapy esa gS nw/k vkSj vka[kksa esa ikuh** 14. After above tearful homage, the great poet in Vishnupriya lamented that, what a poor maintenance, price or value or homage the world offers to women. ^^nks nks dkSj vHkh ikysxh vkSj pikfr;k¡ pkj] ukjh rsjk ewY; ;gh rks j[krk gS lalkjAA** Yet another great poet Jayshankar Prasad in Kamayani" after touching multifold aspects of womenhood, frankly confessed the limitations, helplessness and handicaps of working sex when he said:- ;g vkt le> rks ikbZ gwW eSa nqcZyrk esa ukjh gaw] vo;o dh dksey lqUnjrk ysdj eSa lcls gkjh gwaA AA ^^ij eu Hkh D;ks bruk <hyk vius gh gksrk tkrk gS ?ku;ke [kaM lh vka[kks esa D;ksa lglk ty Hkj vkrk gSA** AA eSa tHkh rksyus dk djrh mipkj] Lo;a rqy tkrh gwW Hkqt yrk QSayk dj uj r: ls >wys lh >ks[ks tkrh gwaA He summarized by stating : ^^ukjh rqe dsoy J)k gks] vkalw ds Hkhxs vkapy ij] eu dk lc dqN j[kuk gksxkA 15. The poets are real assessors of the Social conditions, though sometimes they may exaggerate. Vimal & Salims decisions support the social need. 16. It is not necessary to discuss them in detail because of the finding given above. Consequently the application is accepted. The poets are real assessors of the Social conditions, though sometimes they may exaggerate. Vimal & Salims decisions support the social need. 16. It is not necessary to discuss them in detail because of the finding given above. Consequently the application is accepted. It is ordered that from the date of the application for maintenance given in the trial court by the wife Smt. Raghubala Sharma, the non-petitioner Chandra Prakash would pay Rs. 150/- per month as maintenance. This amount would be continued to be paid and can be valid or altered on the application of the either of the parties to the Magistrate according to the well established principles of section 125 Cr.P.C. and the observations made above. The husband would also pay the amount of Rs. 500/- as expenses of this Court.