1. Admit.

2. Heard finally by consent. Both these revision applications challenge the common judgment and order dated 15th & 17th February, 2014 rendered in Petition No.A.906/2007 seeking dissolution of marriage, which was rejected, and Petition No.E.65/2008 claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short), which was allowed by granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the wife Venu and of Rs.1,000/- to the child Atish.

3. Criminal Revision No.6/2016 has been filed by Venu and Atish, whereas the other Criminal Revision No.7/2016 has been filed by the husband Pravin. Both these revisions, however, challenge only the order of granting maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., though they seek different reliefs, one relating to enhancement of maintenance and the other to setting aside of the order.

4. According to the learned Counsel for the husband, the agricultural land belongs to the entire paternal family of the husband and that the husband has six brothers having shares in the agricultural land and, therefore, the husband is not in a position to even pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- to the wife Venu and child Atish respectively. He also submits that the wife has received huge amount by selling the property belonging to her father. He further submits that the wife is the only daughter of her father and, therefore, whatever, her father has got, would ultimately be received by the wife. This is all disagreed to the learned Counsel for the wife, who submits that there is a clear-cut finding recorded by the trial Court that wife is not earning anything independently and that she is unable to maintain herself and her son on her own. But, the learned Counsel for the wife submits that a mistake has been committed by the trial Court in determining the quantum of maintenance. According to him, the quantum of maintenance should have been the same as claimed by the wife and her son, which was of Rs.5,000/- each. The reason is that, admittedly the husband and his family own agricultural land admeasuring 50 to 52 acres.

5. On going through the impugned judgment and order and the material available on record, I find that there is no substance in the objection taken on behalf of the husband and I also find that the argument canvassed on behalf of the wife and the son deserves acceptance.

6. So far as the finding regarding the wife not being able to maintain herself and her son is concerned, I do not think that this could be considered as perverse or based upon no evidence. The learned Counsel for the husband also could not show to me any evidence having been brought on record by the husband to prove his contention that the wife was earning independently in the present case. The only contention of the husband is that the wife has received substantial amount as sale proceeds of her ancestral property. One does not know as to whether or not the wife has really received the amount of sale proceeds. If the sale-deed bears signature of the wife, that does not mean that the sale consideration is actually passed on to her and for that matter, specific evidence is necessary, which is absent in the present case.

7. Even if it is assumed just for the sake of argument that a woman has received some money from out of the sale of her ancestral property, still that amount cannot be made a capital of by the husband to avoid his responsibility to maintain his wife. A husband cannot refuse to maintain his wife and child on the ground that as his wife has received some amount from her father, she should eke out her living from out of that amount. A husband can neither expect his wife to receive some cash benefit from her father or from out of her ancestral property nor can insist on his wife, if she has received any such benefit, to spend it on her own or child's maintenance, it being her Stridhan, an absolute property. Husband's duty to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself, is absolute