P. R. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for both the parties. On their consent this revision is disposed of at the stage of admission. L. C. R. is available in record. ( 2 ) THE opposite party filed Criminal Proceeding No. 501 of 1994 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') for monthly maintenance claiming herself to be the wife of the petitioner on the ground that she is living with her father being ill-treated and deserted by the petitioner. She also took the plea that she had no source of income and she was unable to maintain herself whereas the petitioner had landed property and rice huller having sufficient means. Accordingly, she prayed for a monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/ -. Opposite party did not dispute the relationship but in his counter he denied the allegations of ill-treatment, cruelty and desertion, as alleged. He also denied to the sources and the quantum of income. On the other hand, he contended that he is a rheumatic patient, unemployed and has no earning capacity at all, therefore, he is not able to maintain his wife. ( 3 ) IN support of their respective cases the petitioner and opposite party examined three witnesses each including themselves as O. P. W. 1 and P. W. 1 respectively. No document was tendered in evidence. ( 4 ) LEARNED Judge, Family Court, on appreciation of the evidence found the petitioner to be guilty of the cruelty and desertion and capable of maintaining the opposite party. He also accepted the sources of income of the petitioner as stated by the opposite party in her evidence and granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 250/- with effect from the date of filing of the case, i. e. , 19-4-1994. The said order has been challenged in this revision. ( 5 ) DURING the course of argument learned Counsel for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to the evidence in record and stated that in the absence of any document to prove the extent of the land possessed by the petitioner the contention of the petitoner as well as the opposite party in their evidence in the lower Court was a matter of oath versus oath. Since the petitioner denied to the allegation of possessing 3 to 4 acres of land in his counter, yet the opposite party did not produce any document to substantiate her contention hence the Court below should not have accepted the contention of the opposite party that the petitioner is the owner of 3 to 4 acres of land. This contention will not hold good inasmuch as if the petitioner possesses less than 3 acres of land he should have filed such document to show correctness of his contention. It is true that burden of proof is initially with the opposite party. But the fact remains that the petitioner has admitted that he is owner (may be joint owner with his father and brothers) of landed properties which is less than three acres. When it is not only the legal obligation but also moral duty of the petitioner to maintain his wife, he must approach the Court with clean hands and clear heart. In a case of this nature a husband cannot get rid of his legal liabilities and moral obligation on such a technical plea. ( 6 ) IT is next argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a diseased person inasmuch as he is a chronic patient of rheumatism and he has no source of income and that even he is not able to earn as a labourer so he cannot be regarded as an able bodied person having the capacity to earn and to maintain his wife. In that context, he has not produced any convincing evidence that he is suffering from rheumatism. He has not produced medical certificate in support of such ailment. It is not his case that he is otherwise disabled. In such circumstances, the petitioner has failed to prove that he is a disabled man or that he has no earning capacity. ( 7 ) IT is further argued that opposite party being a working woman and earning his livelihood, she is not entitled to get maintenance from the petitioner. It appears from the evidence adduced by the petitioner that in 1990-91 the opposite party was working as a Bidibinder. That does not change the situation inasmuch as by the date of desertion and thereafter she is not working and she has no source of income. It appears from the evidence adduced by the petitioner that in 1990-91 the opposite party was working as a Bidibinder. That does not change the situation inasmuch as by the date of desertion and thereafter she is not working and she has no source of income. It may be mentioned that under appropriate changed circumstance a petition under Section 127 of the Code can be filed for modification of order. ( 8 ) LASTLY, it is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that keeping in view the poverty of the petitioner the monthly maintenance amount may be reduced so that he will be able to arrange and pay. Learned Counsel for the opposite party argued that in these days Rs. 250/- is not adequate to sustain livelihood with bare necessities, hence the maintenance amount already fixed should not be reduced. There is much force in the argument advanced for the opposite party. It is the settled position of law that quantum of monthly maintenance should be fixed keeping in view the income of the husband, number of dependants and the bare necessities of the person claiming maintenance. In that respect the learned Judge, Family Court has taken into consideration the evidence in record regarding the income of the petitioner. The petitioner has presently no dependant except the opposite party whom he is bound to maintain. When the wage of a daily wager is around Rs. 35 to 40 per day a monthly maintenance of Rs. 250/- does not appear to be excessive. ( 9 ) THUS, the revision is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.