Adekola Mustapha queried how the learned trial Judge came to award the maintenance cost it gave to the Respondent giving the circumstances of the case and the evidence of means of the two parties presented before the Court. He contended that by the Appellant's estimation, he will be expected to pay a total sum of N380,000 to the Respondent and the only child of the marriage as maintenance cost. Learned Counsel argued that even if the Appellant has no parent, children of pervious marriage or relations under his care and control that he would not be able to take care of himself if he pays an average sum of N31,666.7 to the Respondent per month as maintenance cost out of less than N33,000.00 his monthly take home pay. He opined that the law is that the Court will not make an Order in futility or one not capable of being enforced. Learned Counsel insisted that it is not a must that maintenance cost be awarded against a party when it is apparent that such party has no means of paying. He referred the Court to the cases of: Anyaso v. Anyaso (1998) 9 NWLR Pt. 564 page 150 and Akinboni v. Akinboni (2002) 5 NWLR Pt. 761 page 546 where he said the Court held that it is punitive to order a party to pay a maintenance allowance that is much more than his income. Adekola Mustapha submitted that the learned trial Judge did not properly consider and evaluate the evidence of earning capacities of the parties before making those award and neither did he consider the means of the parties. On the definition of what constitutes means of the parties and "earning capacity of the parties" in ordering maintenance in matrimonial cause, he cited the case of Damulak v. Damulak (2004) 8 NWLR Pt. 874 page 157, at 171-172.