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. 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