N. B. ASTHANA, J. ( 1 ) OPPOSITE party No. 2 Smt. Susheela Devi filed an application on 18. 9. 1987 under Section 125 cr. P. C. Upon the allegations that she was married to the revisionist according to Hindu rites and customs, came to resides with the revisionist after the marriage and performed her marital obligations. About four years back he fell into wrong habits, started taking intoxicant and fell into the company of ill repute women and when she objected she was beaten. He was also complaining about the dowry given by her father, in marriage and was demanding more dowry. She was being harassed and cruelly treated. For the aforesaid reasons and in the month of october, 1984, the revisionist deprived her to her clothes and ornaments beat her and threw her out of the house. She claimed Rs. 400/- per month as maintenance allowance stating that the revisionist is earning Rs. 800/- per month. ( 2 ) THE revisionist had not dispute the marriage but stated that she was married about 11 years back when she was of about seven or eight years of age. Gauna ceremony was held about three years back. She came to his house. It was then that he found her to be of unsound mind. She was unable to discharge her marital obligations. He complained about it to her father whereupon a panchayat of the community was held in which their marriage was dissolved by consent. He assailed the marriage on the ground that it was not in accordance with Hindu rites and customs and the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. ( 3 ) THE Trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced in the case came to the conclusion that smt. Susheela Devi is not of unsound mind, that the marriage was not in violation of Hindu marriage Act and is therefore a valid marriage and that the revisionist failed to prove that the marriage was dissolved as alleged in the W. S. If further came to the conclusion that Smt. Susheela Devi failed to prove that the revisionist was taking intoxicants or was visiting women of ill repute and that she also failed to prove that he was earring Rs. 800/- per month. The Trial court was further of the opinion that a minor dispute between husband and wife would not entitle her to claim maintenance. 800/- per month. The Trial court was further of the opinion that a minor dispute between husband and wife would not entitle her to claim maintenance. The application was rejected. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order Smt. Susheela Devi filed Criminal Revision No. 139 of 1989 which was decided on 22. 1. 1991 by the then Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur. The revisional Court came to the conclusion that the revisionist has sufficient means to pay maintenance allowance to Smt. Susheela Devi, that the dispute between the parties is not of a minor nature so as to disentitle her for maintenance allowance. The revision was accordingly allowed. Smt. Susheela Devi was granted maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month from the date of application. Aggrieved by it the husband has filed this revision. ( 5 ) I have heard the Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It was argued that the revisional Court could not have set aside the finding of fact recorded by the Trial Court and substituted its own finding. The Trial Court recorded two findings against Smt. Susheela Devi. The first is that the failed to prove that the revisionist was taking intoxicants and associating with bad women and was not in a position to pay maintenance allowance. Whether he was associating with women of ill repute and taking intoxicants is besides the point. The question is whether he is willing to keep his wife with him. He is not prepared to keep her as he has not where made that offer. On the other hand he alleged divorce by mutual consent. This was found by the Trial court as not proved. Smt. Susheela Devi was also not found to be of un-sound mind. From the findings recorded by the Trial Court itself Smt. Susheela Devi was entitled for maintenance. The revisional Court has only drawn conclusion from the findings recorded by the Trial Court. This is quite permissible. The Trial Court further found that the revisionist is not possessed of sufficient means to pay maintenance allowance. The words sufficient means does not refer to ownership of property or present income of employment. It refers to capacity to earn money. The revisionist is an able bodied person. He is looking after the cultivation of his father. The Trial Court further found that the revisionist is not possessed of sufficient means to pay maintenance allowance. The words sufficient means does not refer to ownership of property or present income of employment. It refers to capacity to earn money. The revisionist is an able bodied person. He is looking after the cultivation of his father. From the judgment of the Trial Court itself it is clear that the revisionist has capacity to pay. A person without sufficient means would not have been able to come to the High Court in litigation. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances it can not be said that Revisional Court over stepped its jurisdiction in deciding the revision. The judgment does not suffer from any infirmity. The revision is dismissed. The stay order granted on 12. 3. 91 is vacated. .