Cr.R. No.897/2002 30.11.2011 The case has been called out in the revised list but no one has appeared to press this revision on either call. This revision by the wife and daughter challenges the order passed by the lower revisional Court whereby the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. The said application had been moved on behalf of the said wife and daughter against the husband/father. The lower revisional Court has given reasons in paragraph 12 & 13 respectively for refusing maintenance. In paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment, the revisional Court finds that the wife is capable of working because she used to help her husband in the agricultural work. If a person is capable of working, it does not mean that the person will necessarily be able to find paying work, and whether the payment will be sufficient for maintainance. Further, even if this observation in para 13 is assumed to be correct, it can not apply to the daughter. Similarly, the observation made in the paragraph 12 that the wife is living apart without sufficient cause can not apply to the daughter and, therefore, the order of the lower revisional Court dated 10.7.2002 cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside. The matter will be reconsidered by the revisional Court. The revision is allowed as above. (Sushil Harkauli) Acting Chief Justice