JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 25.3.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (for short "the Revisional Court') dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner and affirming the order dated 11.2.2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh (for short `the trial Court') awarding maintenance to the non-petitioner. 2. The facts of the case, relevant and necessary for disposal of this miscellaneous petition, in a nut shell, are that non-petitioner-Smt. Sushila filed an application u/s. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `the Code') before the trial Court, inter alia, alleging that her marriage with petitioner-Ajay took place on 3.7.1998 as per Hindu Customs and they lived together as husband and wife. After marriage, the husband and his family members made a demand for motorcycle and on account of non-fulfilment of this dowry demand, she was turned out from the roof of her in-law's house keeping her clothes, ornaments and other dowry items with them. She made an application u/s. 125 of the Code, with the assertion that she is an illiterate lady, having no independent source of income whereas the husband is having 25 Bighas irrigated land and also carries on business in food-grains and as such he is having the yearly income of about Rs. Two lac from agriculture and business, as such she be allowed a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month as maintenance. The petitioner-husband admitted the factum of marriage but denied all other averments made in the application u/s. 125 of the Code. Giving pedigree of the family, he has stated that out of 9.39 acres of land, his father is having only 1/7 share and out of that 1/7 share, petitioner's share comes to 1/3 thereof. He has further stated that he is a student and has no independent income, rather he has borrowed a sum of Rs. 16,000/- from one Hajari Ram for pursuing Computer Course. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 11.2.2003, partly allowed the application and allowed a sum of Rs. 750/- per month as maintenance to the wife. Aggrieved thereof, both the parties filed revision petitions, which have been dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.3.2004. Hence this miscellaneous petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments passed by the Courts below. 4. 750/- per month as maintenance to the wife. Aggrieved thereof, both the parties filed revision petitions, which have been dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.3.2004. Hence this miscellaneous petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments passed by the Courts below. 4. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the non-petitioner has miserably failed to prove the income of the petitioner and as such, for want of sufficient income, the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay maintenance to the wife. The essential condition for grant of maintenance is that a person having sufficient means is refusing or neglect to maintain his wife, legitimate or illegitimate children or parents who are unable to maintain himself or herself. Even in the case where the wife had left the house on her own, is no ground to disentitle her to maintenance. In order that a wife can apply for maintenance for herself, she has to allege in the petition and prove before the Magistrate that she is unable to maintain herself; however, omission to aver in the petition is not fatal if there is sufficient proof that the wife has no means of her own. The expression "unable to maintain herself' means unable to earn a livelihood. The earning must be such as to maintain the wife without depending upon others. She will be entitled to maintenance for herself if she can prove that she has no other means or source to maintain herself. 5. In Mannava Satyawati & Ors. v. Mannava Malleshwara Rao & Ors., 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 259 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that because the wife and children had left the house on their own, is no ground to disentitle them to maintenance. 6. In H.C. Mohan v. Smt. Sulochana, 2001 Cr.L.J. 1815 , the Karnataka High Court held that the husband is bound to maintain his wife and the liability of husband to pay maintenance arises out of matrimonial obligation and not under any contractual obligation. The Court further held that plea of "no means to pay" has to be rejected at very threshold and question of granting any opportunity for leading evidence to establish "no means to pay" also does not arise. 7. The Court further held that plea of "no means to pay" has to be rejected at very threshold and question of granting any opportunity for leading evidence to establish "no means to pay" also does not arise. 7. In Tarak Shaw v. Minto Shaw, 1984 Cr.L.J. 206 , the Calcutta High Court held that even insolvency of husband is not conclusive in enquiry u/s. 125 of the Code and his capacity to work and earn a salary to maintain his wife is material. 8. In Basanta Kumari Mohanty v. Sarat Kumar Mohanty, 1982 Cr.L.J. 485 , the Orissa High Court observed that there is, no doubt that an order u/s. 125 of the Code can be passed only if a person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, child, parents etc. It is, however, well settled that the expression "means" does not signify only visible means such as, real property or definite employment and if a man is healthy and able-bodied, he must be held to be possessed of means to support his wife, child etc. Even the husband may be involvement or a professional beggar or a minor or a monk, but he must support his wife so long as he is able-bodied and can eke out his livelihood. 9. In Durga Singh Lodhi v. Prembai & Ors., 1990 Cr.L.J. 2065 , a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a healthy and able-bodied person but without any visible or real property must be held as having means to support his wife and child. Once a person has capacity to earn, he cannot escape his liability to maintain u/s. 125(1) of the Code. The Court further observed that "means" does not signify only visible means, like real property in the shape of income, revenue or estate or a definite employment but it includes capacity to earn money. A healthy and able-bodied person but without any visible or real property must be held as having means to support his wife and child. Once a person has capacity to earn, he cannot escape his liability to maintain his wife and child. 10. I have carefully gone through the evidence led by the wife. There is over-whelming evidence on record led by the wife that the petitioner/husband is having annual income of about Rs. Once a person has capacity to earn, he cannot escape his liability to maintain his wife and child. 10. I have carefully gone through the evidence led by the wife. There is over-whelming evidence on record led by the wife that the petitioner/husband is having annual income of about Rs. two lacs from the agriculture and business in grain and he is also having licence for business in food-grains. In rebuttal, the husband has come with the case that only a small portion of agricultural land comes to his share, he is a student pursuing the course in computer education and has no independent source of income. Mere denial of sufficient income be the husband, without meeting out the evidence of the wife regarding sufficient source of income of the husband, does not absolve the petitioner from his liability to maintain the wife. Even otherwise, in view of the law discussed hereinabove, the petitioner, being a healthy and able-bodied person having earning-capacity, is liable to maintain the wife, particularly when he has failed to establish any independent source of income of the wife. The learned trial Court, after appreciation, evaluation and scanning the evidence, awarded maintenance to the wife and the lower Revisional Court, by a detailed and well-reasoned order, affirmed the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court. Thus, when there is a concurrent and positive finding of fact by the Courts below that the petitioner-husband had failed to maintain the respondent-wife and neglected her and therefore, the order of maintenance, which was passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the revisional Court, cannot lightly be interfered by invoking inherent jurisdiction. 11. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has not neglected the non-petitioner, rather she herself has left his company and started living with her parents. It has been specifically pleaded in the application u/s. 125 of the Code, as also come in the evidence of the non-petitioner that she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. She was assautled by the petitioner and turned out from the matrimonial home. These facts tantamount neglecting to maintain the wife. It has been specifically pleaded in the application u/s. 125 of the Code, as also come in the evidence of the non-petitioner that she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. She was assautled by the petitioner and turned out from the matrimonial home. These facts tantamount neglecting to maintain the wife. It is not the case of the petitioner that the non-petitioner left the matrimonial home at her sweet will, rather there is overwhelming evidence to the effect that on failure to meet the demand of dowry, she was assaulted and forcibly turned out from her matrimonial home and compelled to live in her parent's house. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the petitioner neglected to maintain the non-petitioner. Thus, both the Courts below are justified in granting maintenance to the non-petitioner. 12. More so, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as he has already availed the remedy of filing a revision petition before the learned Revisional Court as envisaged u/s. 397 Cr.P.C. Under the garb of a petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks to avail a remedy of second revision. The second revision petition is barred by Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharampal v. Ramshri, 1993 Cr.L.J. 1049 and Deepti Alias Arati Rai v. Akhil Rai & Ors., JT 1995 (7) SC 175. 13. The scope of sub-section (3) of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. and inherent powers of the High Court u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. came to be considered by the Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishnan & Anr. v. Krishnaveni & Anr., AIR 1997 SC 987 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that ordinarily, when revision has been barred by Section 397(3) of the Code, a person accused/complainant cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court u/s. 397(1) or under inherent powers of the High Court u/s. 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 397(3) or Section 401 of the Code. 14. 14. However, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Krishnan's case (supra), observed that the prohibition u/s. 397(3) of the Code is not applicable when State seeks revision u/s. 401 Cr.P.C. and High Court can entertain it in case of grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of Court or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate required correction. The case on hand does not fall in the category of miscarriage of justice or manifest injustice or abuse of process of any Court and therefore, no interference u/s. 482 of the Code is required. 15. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this miscellaneous petition and the same is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******