The capacity to earn money is included in the interpretation of 'sufficient means' under Section 125 Cr.PC, and unemployment does not exonerate the husband from the liability to maintain his wife.

1. - This appeal filed 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against an order of the learned Judg-of the Family Court, Jaipur dated April 12, 1988 by which the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs 200/- per month to the respondent for her interim maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings.

2. Relevant facts may be recalled in short. The respondent there in after to be mentioned as the wife) submitted an application 125 Cr.PC in the couit below against the appellant, (here in after to be referred to as the husband) for getting maintenance. The parties are Muslims. The wife is a post graduate while the husband is only a matriculate. The marriage between them was solemnised on 2-12-1985. How ever, they could remain together only for sometime and since January, 1985 the wife is living with her parents. The income of the husband was stated to be Rs 4 000/- per month. The wife demanded a sum of Rs 400/ by way of interim maintenance so long the proceeding remains pending The husband resisted the petition on several grounds denying is liability for providing maintenance to the wife. One of the defences was that he has no source of income and is an unemployed person. He has, therefore, no means to provide the maintenance to the wife. The learned Judge heard the parties and passed the impugned order. The impugned order is now challenged in this appeal.

3. The contention of the learned Counsel is that the appellant does not possess sufficient means. He is unemployed and has no source of income. He is liable to pay maintenance 125 Cr. PC only when he has sufficient means. The court below did not decide this point as to whether he had sufficient means and abruptly passed the impugned order. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on Smt. Savitri v. Govind Singh AIR 1985 SC 984 . We have taken the contention into consideration and find it ineffective and bizarre.

4. It is true that words 'sufficient means' have been used in Section 125(1) Cr.PC. But these words do not mean that the husband should have any visible means or a definite employment. The words 'sufficient means' are of wide connotation and include the capacity to earn money. If a man is healthy and able bodied, it must be inferred that he can have the means or has the means to support his wife. Even the unemployment of the husband does not exonerate him from the liability to maintain his wife. It is the capacity of find out whether he has sufficient means to provide maintenance to his wife. In the instant case, the husband is a young man having passed the matriculation examination. There is no averment that he is not healthy or able-body person or is otherwise a handicapped person. He has thus all the potentiality for earning. If he does not use his potentialities for earning, the wife cannot be denied the maintenance on that account. In the proverbial saying, the husband may beg, borrow and steal but must maintain his wife. There is nothing in the judgment of their Lordships in Savitri's case which may render any help or assistance to the husband.

5. The court below has allowed only a paltry amount of Rs. 200/-per months as maintenance to the wife. In these days when prices are soaring high, a paltry sum of Rs. 200/- is not sufficient even to keep the flesh and bones together.

6. We find nothing illegal in the impugned order which may require correction or modification. After all the object of enacting Section 125 is to prevent the wife's vagrancy and to protect her from becoming a street beggar.

7. The appeal is therefore, summarily dismissed.Appeal Dismissed.

*******