JUDGMENT Kundan Singh, J.
1. This petition has been filed by Mahabir @ Lallu against his wife Smt. Kamla Devi for quashing of the judgment and order dated 24.3.1982 of Mr. S.N. Singh, IInd Additional Munsif Magistrate, Mirzapur whereby he ordered payment of maintenance allowance of Rs. 150/- per month to Smt. Kamla Devi and Rs. 100/- per month to her son till he attains majority from 11.2.1975 and also the judgment and order dated 9.9.1982, passed by Mr. L.N. Rai, IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Criminal Revision No. 56 of 1982 modifying the order of learned Magistrate to the extent that Smt. Kamla Devi will get maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month for herself and her son from 11.2.1975 to24.3.1982 and thereafter she will get Rs. 150/- for herself and Rs. 100/- for her son every month towards maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as directed by the learned Magistrate.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Kamla Devi as married to the applicant Mahabir @ Lallu in the year 1971. She gave birth to a child form his union. After the marriage a bad habit of drink had cultivated in the applicant. He often used to beat his wife and treated her with cruelty. She was pushed out of the house by the applicant but on intervention of some persons, he permitted her to live in the house. About 8 or 9 months prior to the institution of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. she was badly beaten and turned out of the house again. The applicant had also snached gold and silver ornaments and clothes etc. of the Opposite Party while turning her out of the house. She came to her parent's house and since then the petitioner never came to take her to his house nor maintained her despite a notice sent by Smt. Kamla Devi to the petitioner and a Panchayat convened in that connection. The petitioner thereafter remarried himself with one Sushila Devi daughter of Chhotelal Mallah of Varanasi. She has no means to maintain herself and her son. The applicant neglected to maintain the Opp. Party and her son and consequently she prayed for Rs. 500/- per month from the applicant towards their maintenance.
3. The applicant has denied the allegation of bad habit or ill treatment with Smt. Kamla Devi. He also denied that he turned out Smt. Kamla Devi of his house. He stated in his written statement that Smt. Kamla Devi was living separately from him with mutual consent of both the parties. For that purpose she put her thumb impression on a compromise. He also denied his second marriage with any other lady. He asserted that no doubt he had passed M.A. (previous) but he was unemployed and was earning his livelihood by tuitions and his total income was Rs. 50 or 60/- per month. He also asserted that Smt. Kamla Devi was leading an adulterous life and therefore she was not entitled to any maintenance from the applicant.
4. The learned Magistrate after perusing the evidence and hearing the parties allowed maintenance of Rs. 100/- per month to Opp. Party and her son by order dated 13.8.1976. Against that order the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 58 of 1976. The Revisional Court allowed the revision on 6.5.1978 and remanded the case back to the Magistrate with certain directions. Smt. Kamla Devi filed Criminal Revision No. 1477 of 1978 in this Court against the judgment and order passed by the Court below. This Court set aside the order and remanded the case to the Magistrate with the direction to dispose of the case afresh by order dated 26.11.1979. The petitioner filed additional written statement asserting therein that Smt. Kamla Devi was having an affair with one Vishwanath and was living with him at Renukot. He also offered his willingness to keep her with him. He also asserted that he was unemployed and was earning Rs. 60 or Rs. 50/- per month only form tuitions. The Magistrate after hearing the parties held that Smt. Kamla Devi was unable to maintain herself and her son and the income of the petitioner was at least Rs. 1000/- per month. The parties were not living separately with mutual consent. Smt. Kamla Devi was not leading an adulterous life and accordingly he directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 150/- per month to Smt. Kamla Devi and Rs. 100/- per month to her son as maintenance allowance.
5. On revision the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge modified the order of the Magistrate directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 100/- per month to Smt. Kamla Devi and her son till 23.3.1982 form the date of the application. Thereafter she was allowed Rs. 250/- i.e. Rs. 150/- for herself and Rs. 100/- for her son towards maintenance.
6. The petitioner has now come up to this Court in the above petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order of the Courts below on the ground that there was no evidence that petitioner had ever neglected or refused to maintain Smt. Kamla Devi and her son. The petitioner offered to maintain the wife and son both provided they live with him and that the maintenance allowed to Opp. Party is too excessive. It was also alleged that the Opp. Party is not entitled to any maintenance allowance as she is living in adultery with one Vishwanath.
7. No body appeared on behalf of Opp. Party Smt. Kamla Devi. I heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant records. It is pity that Smt. Kamla Devi had to come to this Court twice and she is getting Rs. 50/- only per month as maintenance under the order dated 14.12.1982 passed by this Court. It is a case where the petitioner has failed to prove at all that Smt. Kamla Devi was leading any adulterous life and this fact alone was a sufficient cause for her to live separately from the petitioner, which entitled her to receive maintenance allowance from the petitioner. D.W. 4 S.N. Dubey, Clerk of the School, stated that Vishwanath Mama, 138 Renukot, Mirzapur is mentioned as the person who applied for the admission of Rajesh Kumar in the Hindalco Primary School, Mirzapur. The applicant also failed to prove that Smt. Kamla Devi is residing with Vishwanath and is living in adultery with him. So far as the income of the petitioner is concerned, there is evidence on record to show that the petitioner has passed M.A. (Previous) and his monthly income is expected at least Rs. 1000/- per month. I do not find any infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below. A concession has been awarded by the Court below to the petitioner that his income might not be Rs. 1000/- per month prior to 23.3.1982, hence the amount of maintenance was reduced from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 100/- form the date of application till 23.3.1982 and thereafter it has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 250/- for herself and her son (150+100) as awarded by the Trial Court.
8. I see no any infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below calling for interference by this Court in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The stay order dated 14.12.1982 is vacated.