father of the petitioner. She, therefore, has not been given the land any specie. She cannot cultivate the land separately. She cannot have her income from the land. She has, therefore, claimed maintenance. The learned trial Court has observed that the respondent-wife was never cultivating the land being Gat No. 61 in which the father of the petitioner is shown as the cultivator and hence cannot derive income therefrom. The learned Judge has also considered the probable income that she would have received which she has been able to cultivate that land. He has granted maintenance far less than what would have the income of such land. The order is well reasoned. It has accordingly been accepted in revision. The mere filing of the compromise and showing the name in the record of rights thereupon without allowing the respondent to have fruits of the land cannot disentitle her from claiming maintenance. In any event the amount of maintenance is most reasonable and rather paltry. The writ petition is devoid on merits and, therefore, dismissed. The respondent-wife shall be entitled to withdraw the part amount of maintenance deposited in this Court. The petitioner shall pay the balance arrears of maintenance and continue paying the maintenance as directed.
