Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. This revision has been directed against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 19th of July, 1998, vide which quantum of maintenance fixed by the learned trial Court to the petitioners who happen to be wife and four minor children was reduced. Whereas the learned Magistrate allowed maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the wife at the rate of 250/- per month, each child, as mentioned above, who were minors, were awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month. This amount came to be reduced by the learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order to Rs. 80/- per month to the wife and Rs. 100/- to each child. 2. Learned Counsel representing the petitioner vehemently contends that learned Additional District Judge after arriving at a conclusion that Harkesh Chand husband of Jagmati and father of other petitioners was an owner of two and a half acres of land and that after the death of his uncle more land was to come to his share and there was convincing evidence on record that Harkesh was doing business of collection of grains and then selling the same in the markets and in March, 1986, he had deposited Rs. 15,000/- in fixed deposit which would clearly demonstrate that he was carrying on business, yet the amount of maintenance was reduced and while doing so no reasons have been given whatsoever. 3. I find considerable merit in the contention of the learned Counsel. Paragraph 11 wherein the financial status of Harkesh Chand came to be discussed by the learned Additional District Judge reads thus :- "11. It is not disputed that Harkesh, as per revenue record, owns two and a half killas of land. It is further not disputed that after the death of his uncle, he is likely to get more land to his share. There is convincing evidence on record that Harkesh is doing business of collection of grains and then selling the same in the markets. He admitted that in March, 1986, he had deposited Rs. 15,000/- in fixed deposit. It clearly shows that he is carrying on a business. He explained that he had sold those ornaments which he had received from his father during the family partition. He admitted that in March, 1986, he had deposited Rs. 15,000/- in fixed deposit. It clearly shows that he is carrying on a business. He explained that he had sold those ornaments which he had received from his father during the family partition. This explanation is not convincing for the reasons that he had not put any such question to his wife. It has also come in evidence that Harkesh had been taking lands of lease. Apart from this, Harkesh is an able-bodied person and it is his moral and legal duty to maintain his family members. Not only that he had neglected maintaining his family members, but has refused to maintain them." 4. Even after so holding in paragraph 11 as has been reproduced above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the maintenance by observing as follows :- "Keeping in view totality of the facts and circumstances of the case that the applicants are living in an ancestral house and financial status of Harkesh, I deem it proper to reduce the quantum of monthly maintenance allowance. Applicants Smt. Jagmati and Ashok Kumar are allowed monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 80/- each from the date of application i.e. 23.9.1986. The other applicants are allowed monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 100/- each from the date of the application i.e. 23.9.1986." 5. If Harkesh was owner of two and half acres of land and more land had come to his share or likely to come to his share after the demise of his uncle and he was doing business as well, it can be well guessed that he was not earning, in any case less than Rs. 3500/- to 4000/- per month. It may, however, be mentioned that after noticing all sources of income of Harkesh Chand, a finding was recorded that he was having sufficient income. It requires to be mentioned here that the petitioners claimed Rs. 500/- for wife and Rs. 1500/- for the minor children and they had pleaded that Harkesh Chand had an income of Rs. 5000/- per month. 6. The facts of the case did not in considered view of this Court warrant any reduction of maintenance allowed to the petitioners by the trial Court. A lady in this case has been left to fend for four minor children all by herself having been neglected by her husband. 7. 5000/- per month. 6. The facts of the case did not in considered view of this Court warrant any reduction of maintenance allowed to the petitioners by the trial Court. A lady in this case has been left to fend for four minor children all by herself having been neglected by her husband. 7. In view of what has been said above, this revision is allowed. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge reducing the maintenance of the petitioner is set aside and one passed by the learned Magistrate is restored. Revision allowed.