Judgment : The scope of the expression "sufficient cause" occurring in Section 125 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") arises for a decision in this revision. 2. Short facts are: Respondent, wife of petitioner obtained an ex parte order in her favour on 7.7.2004 directing petitioner to pay maintenance to her at the rate of Rs. 1,500/ per month. Petitioner did make an attempt to get over that ex parte order but failed. Respondent sought enforcement of the order since petitioner did not pay the maintenance awarded. As petitioner failed to pay maintenance he was sentence to imprisonment and accordingly he underwent imprisonment from November, 2006 till 25.4.2008. Respondent filed C.M.P(Exe). No. 269 of 2008 on 29.5.2008 for realization of maintenance allowance for the period from 7.5.2006 to 6.5.2008. She alleged that petitioner has the capacity to pay maintenance allowance but he is purposely avoiding payment. Petitioner contended that due to the imprisonment he lost job, could not earn during the period he was in prison, he has no sufficient means and hence he cannot be sentenced to imprisonment for non-payment of maintenance for the period from 7.5.2006 to 6.5.2008. Court below held that petitioner was imprisoned due to his own fault of non-payment of maintenance allowance and that he has capacity to pay maintenance. He was directed to pay maintenance for twelve months failing which he should undergo simple imprisonment for six months. That order is under challenge in this revision. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner cannot be sentenced to imprisonment for non-payment of maintenance as he was prevented by "sufficient cause" from not complying with the order. Petitioner could not earn during the period he underwent imprisonment. According to learned counsel imprisonment is only a mode of enforcement of the order and hence it is open to the respondent to realize the arrears of maintenance in any other manner provided but not by ordering imprisonment of petitioner. Counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Kuldip Kaur v. Surinder Singh (1998) 1 SCC 405) and Dnyaneshwar Baburao Gorel v. Sau. Kamal Dnyaneshwar Gorel (1992 Crl.L.J. 835) According to the learned counsel for respondent there is no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. 4. Scheme of Section 125(1) of the Code is to provide maintenance to the destitute parents, wife and children. Kamal Dnyaneshwar Gorel (1992 Crl.L.J. 835) According to the learned counsel for respondent there is no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. 4. Scheme of Section 125(1) of the Code is to provide maintenance to the destitute parents, wife and children. It is a provision intended to prevent vagrancy among neglected parents, wife and children and to ameliorate distress. Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.125 of the Code casts liability on the person having "sufficient means" and who neglects to maintain his parents, wife or children who are unable to maintain themselves to provide maintenance for such person. The provision contemplates an enquiry though of a summary nature as to inability of the person claiming maintenance and capacity of the persons called upon to pay. Before ordering maintenance court has to be satisfied that the person against whom claim is made has "sufficient means" to pay such maintenance. "Means" as referred to in Sec.125(1) did not signify only visible means but it includes capacity to earn money. A healthy and able bodies person but without any visible or real property should be held as having means to support his parents, wife or children. A Full Bench of Rangoon High Court in Maung Tin v. Ma Hmin (AIR 1933 Rangoon 138) stated that the expression "sufficient means" is not confined to pecuniary resource. The Madhya Bharat High Court in Prabhulal v. Parwatibai (AIR 1952 M.B. 96) stated that the fact that husband is a minor or does not work cannot come in the way of granting maintenance to the wife. What should be ascertained is earning capacity of the husband if he is compelled to work. An able bodied man must be held as having sufficient means to maintain his wife or other person whom he is liable to maintain. It is for such person to prove that he has no means. He has to show cogent reasons to hold that he is unable to earn so that he could be exonerated from liability to maintain his parents, wife and/or children as the case may be. In this case the court ordered petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife on the finding that he has sufficient means to maintain her. That finding and consequent order have become final. 5. It is not disputed that petitioner has not paid maintenance allowance due to the respondent for the period from 7.5.2007 to 6.5.2008. In this case the court ordered petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife on the finding that he has sufficient means to maintain her. That finding and consequent order have become final. 5. It is not disputed that petitioner has not paid maintenance allowance due to the respondent for the period from 7.5.2007 to 6.5.2008. It is also not disputed that for nonpayment of maintenance for a preceding period petitioner was in prison from November, 2006 to 25.4.2008. Imprisonment does not, and cannot absolve petitioner of his liability to pay maintenance. Imprisonment is not a made of satisfaction but is only a mode of enforcement of liability. The Supreme Court has pointed out this in Kuldip Kaur's case, referred supra. In the words of the Supreme Court. "….The liability can be satisfied only by making actual payment of the arrears. Sentencing to jail is the means for achieving the end of enforcing the order by recovering the amount of arrears…..." Imprisonment of the person ordered to pay maintenance continues to be a made of enforcement of the order by virtue of Sec. 125(3) of the Code. The only thing is that the person ordered to pay maintenance should have failed "without sufficient cause" to comply with the order. What then, is meant by the expression "sufficient cause"? A Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Dnyaneshwar Baburao Gorel's case, referred supra has held that, "where the husband is able to prove that he has no means to pay, obviously, the exercise of powers under sub-sec.(3) of Sec.125 of the Code by the magistrate would be unwarranted…." 6. Use of the expression "sufficient cause" in Sec.125(3) of the Code is not an occasion for the person ordered to pay maintenance to re-open issued already settled at the time he was ordered to pay maintenance under sub-sec.(1) of Sec.125 of the Code. Under cover of that expression he cannot re-agitate issues which are already settled or raise pleas which were not taken when the order for payment of maintenance was passed. If a change in the circumstances of any person ordered to pay maintenance has taken place, the Code enables such person to seek relief by resorting to Sec.127 of the Code. The Calcutta High Court has taken the view in Modari Bin v. Sukdeo Bin (AIR 1967 Cal. If a change in the circumstances of any person ordered to pay maintenance has taken place, the Code enables such person to seek relief by resorting to Sec.127 of the Code. The Calcutta High Court has taken the view in Modari Bin v. Sukdeo Bin (AIR 1967 Cal. 136) that if a party has failed to pay maintenance the fact that he has not taken any steps for cancellation of the order of maintenance is sufficient for the magistrate to conclude that the party has means to pay and no further enquiry (under Section 488(3) of the odd Code corresponding to Sec.125(3) of the present Code) is needed in the matter. 7. The existence of "sufficient cause" for non-payment of maintenance alone can save the person ordered to pay maintenance from a sentence of imprisonment. "Sufficient cause" implies the presence of legal and adequate reasons. The word, sufficient" means adequate", "enough", "as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended". It embraces something which is sufficient to accomplish the purpose intended in the light of existing circumstances when viewed from reasonable standard of practical and cautious men (See Benarsi Das v. D.D. Cement Ltd. - AIR 1959 Punjab 232). "Sufficient cause" implies no negligence, not inaction, nor want of bona fides on the part of the person concerned. It involves some cause beyond the control of the party concerned. For a party to invoke aid of Court using the expression "sufficient cause" he must have acted with due care and caution. A party who is quilty of a negligence or inaction cannot successfully plead that he has sufficient cause for such inaction. 8. Petitioner, is has already been found hassufficient means to pay maintenance to the respondent. He is able bodied and in the absence of proof of cogent reason to hold otherwise it has to be taken that he continues to be capable of earning and thus continues to have the means to pay maintenance. At a time when he was capable of earning and had a job also even according to him, he failed to comply with the order for payment of maintenance without "sufficient cause". He then had no case that his failure to comply with the order was due to "sufficient cause". That resulted in his imprisonment. That imprisonment was due to his own fault in not paying the maintenance. He then had no case that his failure to comply with the order was due to "sufficient cause". That resulted in his imprisonment. That imprisonment was due to his own fault in not paying the maintenance. He cannot, in my view take his fault and the consequent imprisonment as a ground to refuse payment of maintenance due for the period during which he was in prison. His imprisonment on account of his own fault is not a "sufficient cause" as understood in sub-sec.(3) of Sec.125 of the Code. He continued to have "sufficient means" notwithstanding his previous imprisonment. The decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Durga Singa Lodhi v. Prembai & Ors. (2009 (3) Crimes 90) supports this view. In that case for non-payment of maintenance the husband was sentenced to imprisonment. He challenged the order on the ground that he had no property. Division Bench considered the question whether a person against whom there is an order under Sect.125(1) of the Code with no property whatsoever could be sentenced to imprisonment under sub-sec.(3) of Sec.125 of the Code. The Court held that the notwithstanding that husband had no property whatsoever. "…….if, with this visible capacity to earn, he avoids payment, it has to be held that he has so done for no sufficient cause. If such a person avoids to discharge that obligation despite issuance of a distress warrant, he can be sentenced to imprisonment." 9. At a time when as per the provisions of the old Code it was necessary to prove "willful neglect" on the part of the person ordered to pay maintenance to order his imprisonment question arose whether a person adjudicated as insolvent could be imprisoned for non-payment of maintenance, Halfhied v. Halfhied (1923) ILR 50 Cal.867) took the view, that a person has been adjudicated as insolvent is conclusive so long as the order of adjudication stands that he is unable to pay his debts and therefore such person is not guilty of "willful neglect" within the meaning of Sec.488(3) (of the old Code). Later decisions (of course at a time when instead of "willful neglect", the expression "sufficient cause" was brought into the Code by amendment) did not follow that view. Bartley J, speaking for the bench in Radha Rani Dasi v. Mathi Lal Sen (1940 (2) Cal. Later decisions (of course at a time when instead of "willful neglect", the expression "sufficient cause" was brought into the Code by amendment) did not follow that view. Bartley J, speaking for the bench in Radha Rani Dasi v. Mathi Lal Sen (1940 (2) Cal. 525) stated that Halfhied v. Halfhied did not lay down that an order of adjudication itself is a rebuttal of an allegation that the insolvent has failed without sufficient cause to comply with the order for payment of maintenance. Notwithstanding the order of adjudication the magistrate has to decide whether the person in whose favour such adjudication is made has failed, without sufficient cause to comply with the order to pay maintenance. The Madras High Court in Myiswami v. Muthammal (AIR 1965 Madras 77) has held that even when there is an order of adjudication magistrate has to enquire into the question whether the person ordered to pay maintenance has failed without sufficient cause to pay maintenance. In the view of Madras High Court, even an interim order of protection from arrest passed by an Insolvency Court did not take away the power of the magistrate to order imprisonment of the person ordered to pay maintenance if he has failed to comply with that order without sufficient cause. 10. It is no defence for a person ordered to pay maintenance to contend in answer to a petition for enforcement of maintenance that he has no job, property or income and that amounted to "sufficient cause" as understood in sub-sec.(3) of Sec.125 of the Code. Imprisonment for a term due to failure of the person ordered to pay maintenance for an earlier period without sufficient cause cannot be said to be a "sufficient cause" for nonpayment of maintenance during the period of such imprisonment. He has to show to the court that notwithstanding the finding in the enquiry under sub-sec.(1) of Sec.125 of the Code that he has sufficient means to pay maintenance, he has legal and adequate reasons, reasons which are sufficient to accomplish the purpose in the light of existing circumstances, not to pay maintenance. In this case there is the added circumstance that petitioner was released from the prison on 6.5.2008 and the petition for realization of maintenance for the period from 7.5.2007 to 6.5.2008 was filed only on 29.5.2008. In this case there is the added circumstance that petitioner was released from the prison on 6.5.2008 and the petition for realization of maintenance for the period from 7.5.2007 to 6.5.2008 was filed only on 29.5.2008. That means even after release from the prison petitioner had sufficient time to pay the maintenance. That petitioner preferred to go to the prison rather than pay maintenance allowance to his wife cannot rescue him from a subsequent sentence of imprisonment. Petitioner is able bodied. He has to work and find ways to provide maintenance to his wife, assuming that he has no job or property. 11. Manu, as cited in Mithakshara has urged that, "the aged parents, a virtuous wife and infant child must be maintained even by doing a hundred misdeeds". God said to Eve; "I will greatly increase your pans in child bearing… Yet your desire shall be for your husband. He shall rule over you". And to Adam, He said; "…by the sweat of your face you shall eat bread.." The man who is given power over his women has to find bread for her by the sweat of his face. Revision is devoid of merit. It is dismissed.