JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.— Shrimati Nokhi, wife of the respondent, approaches this Court and assails the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Division, in Criminal Revision No 4 of 1985 decided on 28-10-1985 in the absence of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts, giving rise to this petition, are that the petitioner and the respondent aged more than 80 years— the respondent is stated only 9 months elder to her—were married long-ago. The respondent has had no issue from the petitioner They fell apart and the petitioner is living away from the respondent for the last about 40 years. An application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Porcedure was filed by her in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sundernagar on 3-12-1979. The court, according to this decision, dated 26-12-1984 ordered the payment of Rs. 100 per month by way of maintenance from the date of decision after coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was unable to maintain herself and the respondent had sufficient means and had neglected to maintain her. 3. The respondent moved the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, and the matter was proceeded ex-parte on 20-8-1985 for failure of the petitioner to appear before the court. The appellate court set-aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate and came to the conclusion that Smt. Nokhi had 12 Bighas of land with her and she cultivated it. On the basis of a certified copy of Jamabandi, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that Bardu owned 25 Bighas of land out of which half share had been given to Smt. Nokhi. Therefore, the court observed that both the parties owned the land in equal shares and it can be said that Smt. Nokhi had no sufficient means to maintain herself. 4. Shrimati Nokhi has a grievance against the first revisional Court and alleges through her counsel Shri D. N. Sharma that the order passed ex-parte by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, deserves to be set-aside as she had not been informed of the next date of hearing, so without;, hearing her, the order lacks basic attributes of the principles of natural justice. It it also contended that she being old, could not, therefore, earn anything out of the land and so should be considered to have no sufficient means to maintain herself. It it also contended that she being old, could not, therefore, earn anything out of the land and so should be considered to have no sufficient means to maintain herself. Her husband, though old, has sufficient means ; so duty bound to maintain her at this old age. 5. It appears from the order dated October 28, 1985 that the petitioner Shrimati Nokhi did not appear in the court on 28-3-1V85 inspite of service ; so this aspect of the matter cannot be successfully assailed and in these circumstances also, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. Adverting to the second key argument raised by Shri D. N. Sharma, after reference to the record of the case as well as the statement of the witnesses, I am of the opinion that petitioner Shrimati Nokhi has failed to substantiate her claim for maintenance against the respondent Shri Bardu. 7. Shrimati Nokhi (PW 1) has admitted that her husband is a very old man and it is not possible for him also to work like her. She has further admitted that she has about 12 Bighas and 7 Biswas of land in Dogar Mohal, given to her by her mother wherefrom she gets 15/16 Ladh (it is a measurement locally known) and 2/3 mounds of maize; the whole land h cultivated and she is living separate from her husband since after the age of 21 years. She is not prepared to join with her husband because she cannot leave her land. It is in evidence that she gets this land cultivated through her nephew as due to old age it is not possible for her to work. 8. The husband, Shri Bardu (RW 1), states that he remains ill for the last about 15 years. He cannot do agriculture work due to illness, old age and weak eye sight; the same is done by Beli Ram. His wife has about 12/12/; Bighas of land as shown in Ex. RW I/A. His wife has sufficient land and means for living on the crops like paddy, maize and wheat, besides mango orchard. 9. He produced Kindoo (RW 2) to prove his case. His statement is also to the same effect. 10. Shri Rajiv Sharma, who appears for the husband, submits that the evidence on record clearly proves beyond doubt that his client is an old man. 9. He produced Kindoo (RW 2) to prove his case. His statement is also to the same effect. 10. Shri Rajiv Sharma, who appears for the husband, submits that the evidence on record clearly proves beyond doubt that his client is an old man. He cannot himself work in the field. Rather he himself depends on others. 11. Under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it has to be established that the person against whom an order is sought, must have sufficient means and despite that he neglects or refuses to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself. The learned Counsel submits that both these requirements are not there in the present case. Reference is made to AIR 1975 SC 83, Bhagwan Dutt v. Smt. Kamla Devi and another, wherein Sarkaria, J., speaking for the Court said in paras 20 and 21 as under: "20. There is nothing in these provisions to show that in determining the maintenance and its rate, the Magistrate has to inquire into the means cf the husband, alone, and exclude the means of the wife altogether from consideration. Rather, there is a definite indication in the language of the associate section 489 (1), that the financial resources of the wife are also a relevant consideration in making such a determination. Section 489 (I) provides, inter alia, that "on proof of a change in the circum-stances of any person receiving under section. 488 a monthly allowance, the Magistrate, may make such alteration in the allowance as he thinks fit". The "circumstances" contemplated by section 489 (1) must include financial circumstances and in that view, the inquiry as to the change in the circumstances must extend to a change in the financial circumstances of the wife. 21. Keeping in view the object, scheme, setting and the language of these associate provisions in Chapter XXXVI, it seems to us clear that in determining the amount of maintenance under section 488 (I), the Magistrate is competent to take into consideration the separate income and means of the wife." 12. Another case referred to by the learned Counsel is AIR 1971 Kerala 22, P. T. Ramankutty Achan v. Kalyanikutty. Paras useful for the decision of this case may be extracted as under : "14. Another case referred to by the learned Counsel is AIR 1971 Kerala 22, P. T. Ramankutty Achan v. Kalyanikutty. Paras useful for the decision of this case may be extracted as under : "14. A plain reading of the section shows that it is competent for the wife to claim maintenance provided the husband has sufficient means and he has refused or neglected to maintain her. But the competency of the wife to claim maintenance is different from the actual granting of maintenance to her. In every case in which it is competent for a wife to claim maintenance it is not obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to grant her maintenance. In other words, it may as well be that she may be competent to claim it but on merits the Magistrate may not grant anything towards it. 15. As regards the granting of maintenance what is stated in the section is that the Magistrate may order monthly allowance for maintenance. There is nothing in the section to show that in fixing the monthly allowance the Magistrate should consider the means of the husband alone and shut his eyes to the means of the wife. Cases of ladies getting fabulous income being attracted by and marrying gentlemen with moderate income are not rare. In the case of such persons if a husband refuses or neglects to maintain his wife should she be awarded anything under section 488 towards maintenance ? The answer must clearly be in the negative because the power to grant maintenance allowance is purely discretionary and the object of the section and its social purpose are to prevent vagrancy and destitution and not to punish a husband for having neglected or refused to maintain the wife or to enrich a wife who has already sufficient income for her maintenance. The position is not different where the personal income of the wife is moderate and is sufficient to meet her needs and requirements. Although our law has not gone to that extent in Russia it is so common for, wives to earn their own living that the wife if she has means is bound to support a destitute husband." 13. The same view has been expressed by the High Court of Madras in Sampoornam and another v. Arjunan, 1975 Cr LJ 1466. 14. Although our law has not gone to that extent in Russia it is so common for, wives to earn their own living that the wife if she has means is bound to support a destitute husband." 13. The same view has been expressed by the High Court of Madras in Sampoornam and another v. Arjunan, 1975 Cr LJ 1466. 14. Reference to AIR 1965 Manipur 49, Shri Laisram Nipamacha Singh v. Smt. Khaidem Ningol Sakhi Devi and others, has been made by the learned Counsel to submit that in situations where a person has means but so slender and meagre that they can be hardly said to be sufficient means within the section, such circumstances justify the exemption of the person from giving a maintenance to the other party and capacity to earn money can be taken into consideration in coming to the conclusion with regard to the means of the husband. 15. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the opinion that it is a case where it is hardly possible to direct the respondent (husband) to pay the maintenance claimed by the petitioner (wife) in view of the circumstances he is placed. He is an old man with no earning capacity. His land appears to be equal to the land of his wife. Both are depending on others for cultivation and subsistence. His earning capacity is decidely nil. In these circumstances, it is a fit case where he is exempted from the payment of any maintenance to his wife, although I have held that the petitioner-wife has failed to bring her case within the provisions of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 16. The result is, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is discharged from any order or obligation or directions, if any, passed till date by the courts below at any stage of these proceedings. Petition dismissed.