JUDGMENT R.D. Shukia, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-9-88 of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhar camp at Sardarpur passed in Cr. Rev. 107/87 whereby while reversing the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sardarpur passed in M.Cr.C. 23/85 dated 10.8.87 the non-applicant wife has been granted maintenance of Rs. 75/- per month from 30th Sept., 1988 i.e. from the date of the order of Revisional Court. 2. The brief history of the case is that non-applicant wife Rajubai filed an application Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate referred to above with the contention that she is married wife of Shantilal, applicant here, that he has kept one Bagdibai as his second wife. She is unable to maintain herself and, therefore, a maintenance allowance of Rs. 500/- per month be granted to her. Applicant husband denied the claim and contended that Rajubai herself has deserted him and she refused to go to her husband in the Caste Panchayat. 3. The parties belong to an agricultural class where ladies work. Rajubai is also working there. It was also contended that he (Shantilal) himself is dependent on his father. He has no independent source of income. He is working in the agricultural fields owned by his father. 4. By way of additional pleading it was also contended that Rajubai is keeping nearly more than two Kms., of silver ornaments and nearly 3 to 4 Tola gold ornaments with her and she is able to maintain herself by doing the work in the agricultural fields and from the ornaments and property so held. 5. Learned Trial Judge dismissed the application holding that though the husband is keeping other wife but Rajubai has got a capacity of earning and is earning as such by working in the agricultural fields and that she is having property which can fetch interest @ Rs. 100/- per month. 6. The wife, "N.A. here, filed a Revision before the Sessions Judge which was accepted and she was granted a maintenance allowance of Rs. 75/-per month. Hence, this revision by applicant husband. 7. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that since learned Sessions Judge has accepted the finding about the partial earning of the N.A. including the possible income from the ornaments worth Rs. 25,000/- no further amount of maintenance should be granted. 8. 75/-per month. Hence, this revision by applicant husband. 7. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that since learned Sessions Judge has accepted the finding about the partial earning of the N.A. including the possible income from the ornaments worth Rs. 25,000/- no further amount of maintenance should be granted. 8. As against it learned Counsel for the N.A. has submitted that the capacity of earning of the wife-N.A. should not be looked into. 9. There is no dispute as to the finding about the applicant (husband) keeping other wife. There is no dispute that non-applicant has got capacity to work in the agricultural fields and that she is keeping ornaments now worth Rs. 30,000/-. 10. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no clear finding as to the fact that N.A. is unable to maintain herself rather the finding has been given that she can partially maintain herself and the fact of her working capacity and the possession of the ornaments has also been accepted and thereafter the maintenance allowance has been granted. It has also been submitted that the revisional Court ought not to have intereferred with in the discretion of the trial Magistrate. 11. Though it is true that before granting the maintenance allowance, the Court is required to come to a conclusion that the person demanding such maintenance allowance is unable to maintain herself or himself and it is the capacity of the earning of the husband that has to be seen. But in cases where the person demanding the maintenance allowance is able to maintain himself or herself partially by working as labour or otherwise or by drawing the income from the property; the parties demanding maintenance allowance as such would be required to demonstrate by adducing cogent evidence for amount of their need for maintenance, the earning as such. He would further be required to show how far the amount falls short or is insufficient for maintenance. It appears the learned Sessions Judge while accepting the revision has taken into consideration the capacity of earning of applicant wife and the possible income from the property owned by her but has not given any finding as to why or how or to what extent the income derived as such is insufficient or falls short of. It appears the learned Sessions Judge while accepting the revision has taken into consideration the capacity of earning of applicant wife and the possible income from the property owned by her but has not given any finding as to why or how or to what extent the income derived as such is insufficient or falls short of. This can also be mentioned here that the amount of maintenance is not necessarily confined to bare subsistence-Court can grant proper maintenance after taking into consideration in the relevant circumstances but while granting the proper maintenance a finding as to requirement will have to be given. This has not been done in this case. There is no finding on this fact by the trial Magistrate also. 12. The Revision is, therefore, accepted. The order of learned Sessions Judge is set-aside. The file is remanded back to the Sessions Judge with a direction that after giving parties an opportunity of hearing including the opportunity of adducing the evidence if required decide the case afresh by giving a finding as to the requirement of non-applicant the possible or probable income including how Jar it is insufficient and pass appropriate order. The parties are directed to appear before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sardarpur (Dhar) on 15th December, 1992. No further notice would be required in the matter.