Tllis paper addresses a celltral ques tion: How is the welfare sill lntioll of /lIe socielyrnill eluding depth and lIlagnitude of poverty both in terllls of ill collle I1l1ri 1I01l-i1l COlllernilldimtors prevailillg at grassroots of the study nrea. This study prodll ces sOllie aggrega lernpoverty estilllates; the lIIinimulII level of food basket, the a/Jsolille pOllaly Iillernexpellditllres lIeeded to escape poverty and the weight of the poor as l/ lell l1s Ihe 1-llI llIallrnPoverty Illdex (/-IPf) drawing frolll prilllary data sets. In tllis Silldy Ihc l'esml'cl,1'1'rndeveloped a qllestiollnaire within the fra lllework of the research IPhich IPas IISCri as 11rnIIlensnrillg instrulllent for the study.rnMy find illgs are /Jased on elllpirical work, which is based on data ga lhered frolll a sll rveyrnof 119 ruml hOllseholds ill two Tabias (Villages). The lIIethodology IIsed is silllple alldrneasily III1.derstanda/Jle not lIIarred with sophisticated concepts alld ecolloilleiric IIl0deis.rnTile Cost of Basic Need (CBN) and the UNDP-HPI approach are IIlilized for IIle ill cOlliernpoverty lines alld nOIl-incollle deprivations respectively. The FGT pOllerly illriex isrneillployed to exallline the extent and severity of rural poverty alld reveols Ih l1l over 53rnpercent of the salllple households live below poverty li'ne with poverty gap alld sq ll l1redrnpoverty gap of 0.1336 and 0.0478 respectively. The study also reveals lI,al level ofrndeprivation to socio-econolll ic services (health, education, uutritioll I1l1ri lPoler) logelherrnres II Its /-III III nIl Poverty Index (HPJ) is found to /Je 44.5 percell I. A loll' average riailyrncalorie COl/S lllllptioll and higll prevalell ce of lIIalnutritioll reveals IIlnl n sig II ifimll I sharernof the pop"lation live under situation of chronic food hunger. Evidellce 111 0 1'(' Ilia ll 52rnpercent of the population is living under absolute fOOd poverty. Tile reclIl'relll rirallglllrncOllpled with other environillental problems accelemte food CO IISlllll plioll sllorl fa ll.rnTherefore separate and aggregate policy actions are required.rnDecolll positioll of poverty against various socio-econolllic varial1lcs illriimles Ih ol, asrnexpected edncatioll statlls appear to contribute positively all illlprovellleill of l/Ie/fare ofrnthe households and it is robust at first order stochastic dOlllinance tesl. Gellder lleodsh iprndifference does 1I0t lIIake significant difference in the livillg stalldard of Ille popllialioll.rnOther variables also 1I0t found as expected, for exalllple relate to ti,e illier/illk of fa III ilyrnsize, it is robust at first order stochastic dominan.ce test the highest tile fa ll/illl size tilernpoorest tile hOllsehold, and the interlink of land ownership to rer/llce poverly isrnillsigll ifiCl1l1t alld it is true at firs t order stochastic dOlllinance tesl allri tlle (o lltriiJil lioll ofrnagricllltllral package beneficiaries to poverty reduction is nol robllst 01 all order ofrnsloclwstic dOll/illall Ce tes ts.rnKey words: Tabia, poverty (line incidence gap scverilll illdices),rnconslllliptioll/expell diture, deprivatiou, Basic need, incolI/e and /lO/l -iIl COII II' Iloverty, Costrnof Basic Need (CB N), HOllsehold, Adult equivalent.