and renting the other. Learned Counsel argued that there was no evidence of receipt of such rent or amount. He queried the basis upon which the Court believed that the Appellant is deriving income from such house. Adekola Mustapha submitted that the learned trial Judge did not properly evaluate the evidence before him. He further submitted that this is a proper case for the Court to intervene. He cited the cases of: Chime v. Ndu (1993) 3 NWLR Pt.227 and Adegboyega v. Awe (1993) 3 NWLR Pt. 286 page 224 where he said the Court held that where findings of facts by a trial Court are not supported by evidence and are therefore perverse it will be appropriate and proper for the Appellate Court to interfere with such findings and reverse them. Learned Counsel said the contention of the appellant is that both he and the Respondent are working and that since the Respondent is the one managing the business he set up for her where she admits making an average income of N25,000.00 per month, then he, the appellant should not be made to make any further financial contribution to the only child of the marriage and particularly the Respondent taking into consideration his earning capacity. Adekola Mustapha urged the Court to resolve the issue in favour of the Appellant and set aside the orders of maintenance awarded against the Appellant. Maintenance means the provision made by a man for a woman who was formerly his wife. See Hayes v. Haves (2000) 3 NWLR Pt. 648 page 276 at 293-294. Maintenance is intended to provide for the needs of the wife and not to mark disapproval of the husband's conduct. However the misconduct of the wife may be treated as relevant to her claim for maintenance in certain circumstances.