JUDGMENT : Second respondent is infact the child born from the wedlock of the parties. 2. Since the first respondent is served, it is presumed that the second respondent is also served. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved of an order passed by the lower Court and confirmed by the revisional Court granting maintenance to the respondent/wife @ Rs.1,500/- per month. Similar amount has been awarded for the child's maintenance. Petitioner submits that he has no income and unable to give this maintenance. Petitioner belongs to a agricultural family. He has agricultural income and his father and mother are alive. 4. The petitioner has not filed any documents regarding his income and the agricultural holding of the family of the petitioner. As such, evasive reply has been given. The petitioner who is about 30 years of age cannot be allowed to say that he has no money to look after his wife and child. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. Petition is dismissed. C.C.as per rules.