JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—These criminal petitions (Criminal Revision No. 52 of 1989, Smt. Chitru Devi and others v. Puran Singh, and Cr.M.P. (M) No. 346 of 1989, Puran Singh v. Smt. Chitru Devi and others), arise out of the same judgment. The facts and law being common, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the parties married about 16 years ago and during this long span, as many as six children were born. The couple has three sons and three daughters and their ages are between 1-1/2 years to 14 years. Unfortunately, disaffection developed between them and it appears that the same was on account of the husband remaining away from the company of his wife and children and the wife complains that he was neglecting her and the children due to his keeping a mistress at the place of his posting. 3. After suffering on account of this behaviour of the husband for some time, the wife has no alternative but to petition for maintenance to herself and the minors with her through an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She made detailed account of the whole issue and examined number of witnesses in support of her application. In nutshell, she stated that the husband was neglecting her and the children and was keeping a mistress at a place away from the place of living in the village wherefrom she was turned out alongwith the children when she protested against his illicit relations with the other lady. Since this occasion, she complains, she has been living with her father who, despite meagre resources, was maintaining them with utmost difficulty. On the other hand, the husband denies his relations with any other lady. He further states that the wife was living in his house in the village and she has sufficient income from the apple trees as Well as the landed property which were being looked after and maintained by her in his absence. He has not specifically disputed the payment of maintenance to the children, pf course, he disputes the same being paid to the wife, 4. After the trial of the matter, the plea of the wife prevailed with the trial Judge and she was allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. He has not specifically disputed the payment of maintenance to the children, pf course, he disputes the same being paid to the wife, 4. After the trial of the matter, the plea of the wife prevailed with the trial Judge and she was allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300 per month whereas the minors were individually allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75 per month. Not contended with this order of the trial Judge the matter came in revision before the Sessions Court where the same pleas were advanced by the parties; the husband disputing the liability to pay and the wife asserting her claim for payment of maintenance as already allowed by the trial Court. The learned Sessions Judge -affirmed the findings of the trial Court but modified the order for payment of maintenance to the wife to the extent that the amount was reduced from Rs. 300 to Rs. 150 per month. 5. This order has been assailed by both the parties by these separate petitions. Smt. Chitru Devi through her petition prays for the enhancement of the maintenance to the extent allowed by the trial Court whereas Puran Singh, the husband presses for disallowance of maintenance to the wife even to the extent allowed by the Sessions Judge. 6. The scope of the petitions and the submissions of the Counsel appearing for the parties were confined to the maintenance awardable to the wife, 7. Shri Devinder Gupta has very sariously contended that the wife is not entitled to maintenance since she has sufficient income to maintain herself from the property in her occupation. He makes reference to certain Jamabandi entries as well as reference in the statements of witnesses pointing out that his client had purchased enough land in the name of the wife and she was not only in the enjoyment of this land but also other land and orchard in the village whereas the husband lives at village Sainj. Perusal of the record as well as the statements of the witnesses indicate that the version of the wife that she was turned out along with children by the husband and was living, since then, with her father who is maintaining all of them is correct. Perusal of the record as well as the statements of the witnesses indicate that the version of the wife that she was turned out along with children by the husband and was living, since then, with her father who is maintaining all of them is correct. There is no reason to disbelieve her statement on this aspect and she has been supported by witnesses like Piar Chand (PW 2) who is a Lamberdar and Sobhu (PW 3) a Panch. In these circumstances, when the wife is not living in the villager of her husband where this property is situate, there is no question of her earning anything out of it and thus having sufficient means to maintain herself and the children. Alternatively, even if it is assumed that she is so living, is it possible for her to earn anything in view of large number of children she is to look after at home. There are many cases where parties are possessed of sufficient landed properties but there is nil income out of the same. Agricultural lands do not give income without putting lot of labour, efforts and investments otherwise it is of no use. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the wife has clearly established her case for maintenance and the findings recorded by the courts below are absolutely correct and in accordance with law and evidence on record. There is no reason to take a view different from the one already taken by them. 8. On the question of quantum of maintenance the Sessions Judge has reduced the same to Rs. 150 per month in place of Rs. 300 per month allowed by the trial Judge on the basis of the criteria discussed in para 14 of the order. Assessment on this basis appears to be absolutely without any justification am} even, if such, a principle is applied, the husband has to be satisfied with one unit out of the total 5 units in the family and live on Rs. 300 per month and start giving Rs. 1,200 to the wife and children. However, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the claim of the wife for the enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 150 per month is permitted to some extent. Accordingly, her claim is allowed to the extent that the husband would pay her Rs. 200 per month instead of Rs. 1,200 to the wife and children. However, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the claim of the wife for the enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 150 per month is permitted to some extent. Accordingly, her claim is allowed to the extent that the husband would pay her Rs. 200 per month instead of Rs. 150 per month as allowed by the learned Sessions Judge from the date of filing of the petition in the court of the trial Judge. The maintenance allowed to the children will be the same as already allowed by the trial Judge and maintained by the learned Sessions Judge. The result is that Criminal Revision No. 52 of 1989 is allowed to the aforesaid extent whereas Cr.M.P. (M) No. 346 of 1989 is dismissed. The husband will pay the costs of this litigation quantified at Rs. 1,000, to be paid within one month from today. Appeal dismissed.