Judgment : This revision is directed against the judgment rendered in C.M.A.No.31 of 1987, which in turn arose out of the order passed in I.P.No.3 of 1985. The petitioner in the insolvency petition is the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein filed I.P.No.3 of 1985 under Secs.7, 10 and 13 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, to declare himself as an insolvent. The said petition was dismissed by the first court. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first appellate court. The first appellate court confirmed the order passed by the Insolvency Court. It is against that judgment and decree passed in C.M.A.No.31 of 1987, the petitioner is in revision before this Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted as under: The courts below are not correct in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner, without considering the prima facie case made out by him. The 7th respondent in the insolvency petition has already obtained a decree for Rs.8,400 against the petitioner towards the arrears of maintenance and she has also obtained an order of arrest. The petitioner is unable to pay the debts due to the respondents 1 to 6 and the decree debt to the 7th respondent. Therefore, the petitioner made out a prima facie case for adjudicating himself as an insolvent. The petitioner satisfied the condition imposed in Sec.10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. He proved his inability to clear the debts due to the creditors. Respondents 1 to 6 produced the pronotes executed by the petitioner. It is not necessary that the said respondents should also be examined in order to prove the prima facie case. The genuineness of the pronotes can be looked into only during the time of the final hearing of the insolvency petition. The decree debt in favour of the 7th respondent can be realised out of the properties owned by the petitioner. There is no material on record for the first appellate court to come to the conclusion that the petitioner suppressed certain items of properties belonging to him. In fact, the petitioner has disclosed all the properties belonging to him as well as his share to be allotted in the partition. Since the creditors are relatives, it cannot be said that the promissory notes are not genuine. The insolvency petition was filed not to defeat the right of the 7th respondent in realising the maintenance decree debt. In fact, the petitioner has disclosed all the properties belonging to him as well as his share to be allotted in the partition. Since the creditors are relatives, it cannot be said that the promissory notes are not genuine. The insolvency petition was filed not to defeat the right of the 7th respondent in realising the maintenance decree debt. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon two decisions viz., Hanibabeebi v. Munurdeen, (1938)2 M.L.J. 1042 : 182 I.C. 225: 49 L.W. 167: 1938 M.W.N. 1235: A.I.R. 1939 Mad. 183 and Ranganayaki Ammal v. Rajagopalaswami Naidu, (1940)2 M.L.J. 229: 191 I.C. 670: 1940 M.W.N. 863: A.I.R. 1940 Mad. 951. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent submitted as under: Respondents 1 to 6 are the relatives of the petitioner. The 7th respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The petitioner underwent a form of marriage with another woman and is living with her along with her two children. The 7th respondent filed a suit O.S.No.56 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif, Dharapuram, for collecting arrears of maintenance. The suit was decreed. The execution proceedings are pending. The petitioner evaded his obligation to pay the maintenance to his legally wedded wife. In order to prevent the 7th respondent from realising her maintenance decree debt, the petitioner came forward with the present insolvency petition. The petitioner failed to prove that his debts are more than the assets. The petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case for adjudicating him as an insolvent. The so-called creditors never came to the witness-box to prove their credence. The so-called debts in favour of respondents 1 to 6 arc only fictitious. The value of the properties shown by him in the petition is on the basis of gross under valuation. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein failed to establish a prima facie case for adjudicating him as an insolvent. Since the conclusions arrived at by the courts below are concurrent, under Sec.75(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the courts below. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: B.Yellalu v. Nagulavaram, A.I.R. 1972A.P. 221. M. Ayyappa Naicker v. S.M.Udhavadas Firm, (1970)1 An.W.R. (S.C.) 1: A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1344. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: B.Yellalu v. Nagulavaram, A.I.R. 1972A.P. 221. M. Ayyappa Naicker v. S.M.Udhavadas Firm, (1970)1 An.W.R. (S.C.) 1: A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1344. Hemavathiamma v. Kumaravelu, A.I.R. 1968 Mys. 111. Devayee v. Ramaswami, (1977)1 M.L.J. 80 . .3. I have heard the rival submissions. The fact remains that the petitioner herein filed a petition I.P.No.3 of 1985 to declare himself as an insolvent under Secs.7, 10 and 13 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. According to the petitioner, even though he is having certain immovable properties, they are not sufficient to meet the debts incurred by him. He further submitted that the 7th respondent obtained a decree against the petitioner. In order to realise the debt due under the decree, execution proceedings were laid. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he made out a prima facie case to declare him as an insolvent. The 7th respondent in the insolvency petition contested the case. According to her,she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and her husband married another lady and is living with her. She filed a suit for maintenance against her husband and the suit was decreed. In order to realise the arrears of maintenance, she filed execution proceedings. In order to defeat her right to realise the amount due under the maintenance decree, the petitioner herein came forward with the present petition. Respondents 2 to 6 are his relations through his second wife. Pronotes were executed in favour of respondents 2 to 6 only to defeat the maintenance right of the 7th respondent. Hence she pleaded that the petitioner herein failed to make out a prima facie case to declare him as an insolvent. .4. The 7th respondent filed O.S.No.56 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif, Dharapuram. The suit was decreed. The 7th respondent filed execution petitions to realise the amount due under the decree. The petitioner is said to have neglected to maintain his wife and is living with another woman. It is under these circumstances the maintenance decree was obtained by the first wife, who is the 7th respondent herein. The petitioner cannot escape his liability from paying maintenance to his legally wedded wife. Respondents 2 to 6 are related to the second wife of the petitioner. In favour of the first respondent the petitioner executed a pronote, dated 18. It is under these circumstances the maintenance decree was obtained by the first wife, who is the 7th respondent herein. The petitioner cannot escape his liability from paying maintenance to his legally wedded wife. Respondents 2 to 6 are related to the second wife of the petitioner. In favour of the first respondent the petitioner executed a pronote, dated 18. 1977 for a sum of Rs.20,000. In the said pronote, on 8. 1980 an endorsement was made to the effect that a sum of Rs.50 was paid to the creditor. Again on 17. 1983 another endorsement was made to show that a sum of Rs.50 was paid towards the debt due under the pronote. In favour of the second respondent, the petitioner executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs.5,000 on 11. 1977. On 1. 1980 he made an endorsement as if a sum of Rs.50 was paid towards the pronote debt. Again on 1. 1983 another endorsement was made to show that another sum of Rs.50 was paid towards the pronote debt. In favour of the 6th respondent the petitioner executed a pronote for a sum of Rs.5,000, dated 11. 1978. On 1. 1981 an endorsement was made on the pronote to show that a sum of Rs.50 was paid towards the pronote debt. Again on 1. 1984 another endorsement was made to show that a sum of Rs.50 was paid towards the pronote debt. Thus, according to the petitioner, he incurred a sum of Rs.41,000 by way of debt from various creditors, and the value of the assets belonging to him would be only Rs. 17,300. The first respondent is the father of the second wife of the petitioner. The second respondent is the sister of the petitioner’s second wife. The third respondent is the husband of the petitioner’s aunt. The fourth respondent is the wife of petitioner’s paternal uncle’s son. The sixth respondent is the son of the petitioner’s sister. The fifth respondent is the close relation of the petitioner. These respondents were not examined in order to prove the genuineness of the debts. The petitioner filed a suit for partition against his father, which was pending, at that time. The petitioner has enumerated the properties belonging to him in Schedules A and B in the insolvency petition. The correct value of each item of property was not shown in the schedule. The petitioner filed a suit for partition against his father, which was pending, at that time. The petitioner has enumerated the properties belonging to him in Schedules A and B in the insolvency petition. The correct value of each item of property was not shown in the schedule. There is no proper material on record to show that the debts owed to the creditors are over and above the value of the assets belonging to him. Admittedly the petitioner is the owner of several items of immovable properties and catties. The burden is on him to show that the total value of those properties are lesser than the debts incurred by him. The breakup value of each item of the property was not given in the schedule to the insolvency petition. 5. Under Sec.10(1)(a) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, two conditions must coexist. .(i) The debtor is unable to pay his debts. .(ii) His debts amount to Rs.500. On failure to prove either the debtor’s application for insolvency must fail. Petitioner in order to be adjudged as an insolvent must prove prima facie that he is unable to pay his debt. 6. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in B. Yellalu v. Nagulavaram, A.I.R. 1972 A.P. 227, while considering the provisions of Secs.10(1) and 25(1)(a) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, held as under: "It is an essential pre-requisite for debtor-petitioner to get an order of adjudication to satisfactorily establish that he is unable to pay his debts. That requirement of Sec. 10 therefore has to necessarily satisfied by the debtor. Unless the court is satisfied that there are prima facie grounds for believing that a debtor petitioner, for the purpose of proving his inability to pay his debts, has furnished prima facie proof, the court shall not be bound to hear any further evidence thereon. That proviso to Sec.25(l)(a) relates to the procedure at the hearing and does not absolve in any manner the debtor-petitioner from the obligation of proving that he is unable to pay his debts as is required under Sec. 10(1) of the Act. There is essentially no conflict between Sec. 10(1) and the proviso to Sec.25(l)(a). Chatrapat Singh Dugar v. Kharag Singh Lachmiram, A.I.R. 1916 P.C. 64 and Venkata Janikamma v. VenkateswaraRao, 1955 An.L.T.I4. " .7. While interpreting the debt due under maintenance decree, the Mysore High Court in Hemavathiamma v. Kumaravelu, A.I.R. 1968 Mys. There is essentially no conflict between Sec. 10(1) and the proviso to Sec.25(l)(a). Chatrapat Singh Dugar v. Kharag Singh Lachmiram, A.I.R. 1916 P.C. 64 and Venkata Janikamma v. VenkateswaraRao, 1955 An.L.T.I4. " .7. While interpreting the debt due under maintenance decree, the Mysore High Court in Hemavathiamma v. Kumaravelu, A.I.R. 1968 Mys. 111, held as under: ."Under the Hindu Law, which governs the parties in the instant case, a Hindu is under a legal obligation to maintain his wife, his minor sons, his unmarried daughters and his aged parents, whether he possesses any property or not. The obligation to maintain these relations is personal in character and arises from the very existence of relationship of the parties. When a Hindu refuses or neglects his legal duty, the court enforces that duty by making a decree in favour of the wife or children. When the court awards maintenance to the wife against her husband, it does not enforce the payment of any debt. Unless insolvency releases a man altogether from the obligation to support his wife and children, the husband cannot obtain discharge of his liability under a decree for maintenance by recourse to insolvency. The object of insolvency law is not to deprive the wife and children of the support and maintenance due from the husband and father which it has over been the purpose of the law to enforce. Systems of bankruptcy or insolvency have been designed with the object of relieving the honest debtor from the weight of indebtedness which has become oppressive and to permit him to have a fresh start in business or commercial life freed from the obligation and responsibilities which may have resulted by his misfortunes. Unless expressly required by statutory enactment, the court should not presume the intention on the part of the Legislature in providing a law for giving relief to unfortunate debtors, to make the law a means of avoiding enforcement of obligation moral and legal devolved upon the husband to support his wife and to maintain and enucate his children." .8. While considering the provisions of Sec. 13 of the Provincial Insolvency Act in Ponniah Gounder v. Sellathal and eight others, 1988 T.L.N.J. 124, it is held as under: ."The requirements of a petition filed by a debtor are given in Sec. 13 of the Act. While considering the provisions of Sec. 13 of the Provincial Insolvency Act in Ponniah Gounder v. Sellathal and eight others, 1988 T.L.N.J. 124, it is held as under: ."The requirements of a petition filed by a debtor are given in Sec. 13 of the Act. As per the said provision, a debtor has to make a statement that he is unable to pay his debts and he must disclose all his assets and liabilities and he must also express his willingness to place at the disposal of the court all such property. It is seen from these provisions that once a debtor satisfies these conditions, he is entitled to get an order of adjudication. However, such a right is qualified to certain extent as provided under Sec.24 of Act. The proviso to Sub-sec.(1)(a) of the said section says that where the debtor is the petitioner, he shall, for the purpose of proving his inability to pay his debts, be required to furnish only such proof as to satisfy the court that there are prima facie grounds for believing the same and the court, if and when so satisfied, shall not be bound to hear any further evidence thereon. Aharmonious reading of these provisions would show that once a debtor satisfies the court that there are prima facie grounds showing his inability to pay his debts and satisfies further conditions embodied in Sec.13 of the Act, he is entitled to be adjudged as insolvent. The said proviso rules out any insistence by the court on the debtor furnishing any proof beyond that which can be regarded as prima facie proof. It is further seen from the proviso that the court shall not be bound to hear any further evidence if it is satisfied that there are prima facie grounds for believing the evidence of the petitioner as noticed by Balasubrahmanyan, J., in Thangaraju Pillai v. Periaswami Pillai, (1982)1 M.L.J. 274 ". .9. It is further seen from the proviso that the court shall not be bound to hear any further evidence if it is satisfied that there are prima facie grounds for believing the evidence of the petitioner as noticed by Balasubrahmanyan, J., in Thangaraju Pillai v. Periaswami Pillai, (1982)1 M.L.J. 274 ". .9. In Official Receiver v. AbdulShakoor, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 920, while considering the provisions of Sec.75(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the Supreme Court held as under: ."Where a creditor made a claim based on a promissory note and the District Judge considering the evidence produced, inferred from the facts found that the statutory presumption under Sec.118, Negotiable Instruments Act had been weakened and the burden which lay upon the insolvent was discharged, it is not open to the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Sec.75(1), Proviso 1 nor even under Proviso 2 to set aside the judgment of the court as the question whether a statutory presumption is rebutted is a question of fact. Wall Mohammed v. Mohammed Bakhsh, A.I.R. 1930 P.C.91." 10. So also while considering the provisions of Sec.75(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the Supreme Court in M.Ayyappa Naicker v. S.M.Udhavadas Firm,A.I.R 1969S.C. 1344: (1970)1 An.W.R. (S.C.) 1, held as under: "We are of the opinion that the extreme contentions advanced on either side cannot be accepted. Quite clearly the Legislature did not confer on the High Court under the 1st Proviso to Sec.75(l) of the Act an appellate power nor did it confer on it a jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence on record. While exercising that power the High Court is by and large bound by the findings of fact reached by the District Court. If the Legislature intended to confer power on it to re-examine both questions of law and fact it would have conveyed its intention by appropriate words as has been done under various other statutes. A wrong decision on facts by a competent court is also a decision according to law. If the Legislature intended to confer power on it to re-examine both questions of law and fact it would have conveyed its intention by appropriate words as has been done under various other statutes. A wrong decision on facts by a competent court is also a decision according to law. For these reasons we cannot accept the contention of Mr.Naunit Lai that the power conferred under the 1st Proviso to Sec.75(l) of the Act enables it to de novo examine the findings of fact reached by the District Court." 11.Thus,we have already seen that both the courts below on facts concurrently came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case that he is not in a position to pay his debts to the creditors. Therefore, this Court under revisional jurisdiction, as contemplated under Sec.75(l) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, cannot interfere with the finding of facts arrived at by the courts below. Thus, on a careful consideration of the facts arising in thiscase,and in the light of the decisions cited supra, 1 hold that the judgment and decree rendered by the courts below are in order. Hence I am unable to interfere with the same. 12. In the result, this civil revision is dismissed. No costs.