K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE revision filed against the order of the First Additional Sessions Judge passed in Crl. R. P. No. 21/1999. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the husband of the respondent aged about 82 years. The wife filed an application Under Section 125 seeking maintenance in Crl. Mis. 37/ 1992 on the file of J. M. F. C. K. G. F. The Trial Court dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed the revision before the Sessions Judge. In revision, the Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Trial court and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- annually. Being aggrieved, the present revision is filed. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case reveal that as on the date of the petitioner before the Trial Court, the petitioner was aged about 60 years. The respondent was aged about 55 years. According to the cause title in this petition. According to the cause title in this petition, the petitioner is aged about 75 years. In evidence, it is said that the respondent herein admits that her age was 65 years as on the date of the evidence which is recorded six years after the filing of the case. That means to say she was aged about around 60 years. The parties are illiterates from rural area. Therefore the ages given cannot be taken with accurate precision. There are six children born out of the wedlock to the petitioner from respondent. All of them are employed and well placed in life. Out of them 3 are male and 3 are female. All of the female children are married and well settled, the male children are also married and well settled. One son is D. A. R. Police and another son is working as driver and third son is doing business and agriculture. The family possesses 4 acres of land. The Sessions Court also observes that the land is not being personally cultivated by the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the sons wanted to sell the land. The petitioner did not consent, therefore to harass the petitioner, a false case is filed. It is not contended that the petitioner himself is an old man, unable to maintain himself and unable to live independently without anybody's assistance. The children are well placed in life. The petitioner did not consent, therefore to harass the petitioner, a false case is filed. It is not contended that the petitioner himself is an old man, unable to maintain himself and unable to live independently without anybody's assistance. The children are well placed in life. Only with malicious motive, the respondent has filed a petition seeking maintenance. Even otherwise it is said that if the need is genuine, she could have sued here sons for providing maintenance. Moreover, the petitioner himself is not a man of means nor an able bodied man to earn manual labour and to provide maintenance to his wife. It is said that the petitioner himself is in the late hours of the evening of his life incapable of maintaining himself and directing such a man to pay maintenance is too harsh in the eye of law. The Sessions Judge has considered these aspects and specifically mentioned that the land is not being cultivated by the petitioner. In that view, I find directing the petitioner to pay maintenance is bad in law, there is no case made out to show the refusal or neglect to maintain and no case is made out to show that the petitioner is capable of providing maintenance. ( 5 ) IN that view, the revision is allowed. The order of the Sessions Judge is set aside, The claim for maintenance by the respondent is dismissed.