Arun Kumar Bhattacharya ( 1 ) THE present revision is directed against the order dated 31. 05. 2002 passed by the learned S. D. J. M. , Uluberia, Howrah, in Misc. Case No. 114 of 2000 under Section 125, Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) THE petitioner's case is that her marriage with the O. P. was solemnized according to Muslim rites and customs and in that wedlock a son, now aged about one year three months, was born. After about six months of the marriage she was subjected to ill-treatment and torture by the O. P. While she was carrying for about nine m6nths, she was sent in a rickshaw to her parents' house where the said child was born. The O. P. did not look after them. She having no income is unable to maintain herself. The O. P. earns about Rs. 5,000. 00 7,000. 00 p. m. as Moulavi of a Mosque and teacher of Arbi language of a madrasa. Moreover, he has dwelling house and landed property. She prayed for maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1500. 00 p. m. for self and Rs. 1000. 00 p. m. for her son. ( 3 ) THREE witnesses on behalf of the petitioner while two witnesses on behalf of the O. P. were examined, and after considering the facts, circumstances and materials on record, the learned Court below by the impugned order awarded maintenance of Rs. 400. 00 p. m. and 200. 00 p. m. to her and her child respectively. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner has come up before this Court in revision. ( 5 ) AS none appeared for the O. P. , the matter was heard ex parte. ( 6 ) ALL that now requires to be considered is whether the learned Court below was justified in awarding the aforesaid quantum of maintenance. ( 7 ) MR. R. N. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as the prices of every material have increased to a great event, the amount of maintenance @ Rs. 400. 00 p. m. and Rs. 200. 00 p. m. for the petitioner and her child is too meager and as such the same should be enhanced in order to be consistent with maintaining oneself now-a-days. 400. 00 p. m. and Rs. 200. 00 p. m. for the petitioner and her child is too meager and as such the same should be enhanced in order to be consistent with maintaining oneself now-a-days. ( 8 ) THE facts admitted and/or undisputed in the present case, as are evinced from the materials on record, are as follows : The petitioner is the legally married wife of the O. P. and in that wedlock a son, named Sakin Mustak, now aged about one year three months, was born. She has no source of income and she is residing at her father's house with her said child. The O. P. has married for the second time to one Sabina, and in that wedlock one son was born. ( 9 ) TO sustain an application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. filed by a wife, two out of three essential ingredients are : (1) neglect or refusal on the part of the husband to maintain the wife and (2) husband has sufficient means. ( 10 ) SO far the first ingredient above is concerned, systematic ill-treatment, physical cruelty, reasonable apprehension of physical ill-treatment, violent behaviour towards wife, apprehension of physical harm due to persistent demand of dowry etc. have been held to be just grounds for a wife to live apart. Because of the explanation to the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 125, the fact that the husband has contracted another marriage is by itself a just around for a wile to live separately and to claim maintenance. Here, apart from torture by the O. P, upon her after six months of the marriage, as stated by the petitioner (P. W. 1) which is buttressed by her brother P. W. 2, the fact of second marriage of the O. P. with one Sabina and birth of a son in that wedlock, as stated earlier is admitted. Consequently, the petitioner and her son are entitled to maintenance from the O. P. ( 11 ) AS regards the second ingredient above, it is well settled that "means" does not signify only visible means, and if one is healthy and able-bodied he shall be held to have sufficient means to support his wife and child. It includes a capacity to earn, and the onus is on the husband to show want of means. It includes a capacity to earn, and the onus is on the husband to show want of means. In the present case, it is the evidence of P. W. 1 that as Moulavi of akubhag and as teacher of Arbi language in a Madrasa, the O. P. who has landed property and dwelling house, earns Rs. 5,000/7,000. 00 p. m. which as per evidence of P. W. 2 is 7,000/8,000. 00 p. m. The O. P. (O. P. W. 1) contended that he gets Rs. 700. 00 as Moulavi of a Mosque at Akubhag and he has no other earning. It is his evidence that he used to spend Rs. 500. 00 towards maintenance of his family when he used to visit the house of his wife. If that be so, how he could maintain himself out of the balance amount of Rs. 200. 00 has not been explained, and so this piece of evidence totally falsifies the story of his alleged earning of Rs. 700. 00 p. m. from Mosque. The Mosque, it is expected, maintains a register of payment, and the O. P. could call for and produce the said register, but he failed to do so. Moreover, if his earning is Rs. 700. 00 p. m. only, how he contracted second marriage and how he asked the petitioner to come back to his house is not clear, and so this fact also leads to suggest that the earning of the O. P. is much more than he disclosed. So, the O. P. has failed to prove want of means. ( 12 ) THE word "maintenance", which should not be narrowly interpreted, means the most reasonable requirement for the existence of a person to live separate, and accordingly the expenditure, broadly speaking, not only includes on food, clothing and residence but also medical expenses. The concept of providing a wife merely with food, clothing and lodging as if she is only a chattel and has to depend on the sweet-will and mercy of the husband has now become completely outdated and absolutely archaic, as was observed in the case of sirajmohamedankhan v. H. Yasinkhan, reported in 1981 Cr LJ 1430 (S. C. ). ( 13 ) WHILE determining the amount of maintenance, not only the earning but also paying capacity of the husband should be considered. ( 13 ) WHILE determining the amount of maintenance, not only the earning but also paying capacity of the husband should be considered. ( 14 ) TAKING into account the trend of rising prices of every essential material day by day, the amount of maintenance for the petitioner and her child should not be less then Rs. 800. 00 p. m. and Rs. 400. 00 p. m. respectively and accordingly the impugned order awarding maintenance to the petitioner and her child deserves to be modified. ( 15 ) IN regard to the contention of Mr. Paul regarding allowing the maintenance from the date of application instead of date of order as passed by the learned Court below, it may be observed that an order of maintenance can be made effective from the date of order or from the date of application which is a matter within the discretion of the learned Magistrate. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of S. S. N. Niphade v. N. S. Niphade, reported in 1996 SCC (Cr.) 53 and Dasyam Elizabeth Rani v. Dasyam pradeep Kumar, reported in 2001 Cr LJ 47 (A. P. ). So, when the maintenance has been awarded to be effective from the date of order and there is nothing to suggest that the learned Court below exercised discretion arbitrarily or capriciously, it does not call for any inference by this Court. ( 16 ) THE revisional application be allowed ex parte. ( 17 ) THE O. P. /husband is directed to pay Rs. 800. 00 p. m. and Rs. 400. 00 p. m. to the petitioner/wife towards maintenance of her and her child respectively, the balance portion of the impugned order remaining unaltered. The impugned order stands modified accordingly to that extent.