1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.06.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhusawal in Criminal Revision Application No.101/2014, by which the revision is dismissed and the order 07.07.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yawal rejecting Misc. Application No.136/2006 filed by the present petitioner under section 125(5) and section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, is confirmed.

3. The facts leading to the present writ petition, in brief, are as under:

i. The respondent No.1wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 65/1983 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Yawal for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. That application was decided on 11.08.1992 and maintenance @ Rs.100/- per month was granted in favour of respondent wife. In revision i.e. Cri. Revision No. 227/1992, the learned District Judge, Jalgaon enhanced the amount of maintenance to Rs.200/.

ii. The petitioner-husband had filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 298/1997 for dissolution of marriage. It was decided on 24th April, 2006 and the divorce is granted. The petitioner, then filed Misc. Application No. 136/2006, under section 125(5) and section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of the maintenance order on the ground that divorce decree is passed against the respondent wife on the ground of adultery and the marriage is dissolved. The learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Yawal rejected the application. The petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 101/2014. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the revision and confirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial magistrate, F.C. Yawal. Hence this criminal writ petition.

4. Heard Mr. B. R. Kedar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. P.Kothari learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, and Mr. A. P. Basarkar, APP for respondent No.2 State.

5. Mr. Kedar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition for dissolution was allowed on three grounds i.e. (i) desertion, (ii) cruelty at the hands of respondent wife and (iii) the wife was living in adultery. So, according the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of maintenance needs to be cancelled in view of Section 125(4) and (5) and section 127(2) Cr.P.C. Mr. Kedar further submits that the decree of divorce passed in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 298/1997 was challenged by the respondent wife in the District Court by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 187/2006. The District Court, by order dated 26.03.2012, confirmed the decree of Divorce.

6. Mr. Kedar further submits that the respondent wife has assailed the said order in Second Appeal No.647/2012 before this Court. The second appeal was also dismissed by this Court by order dated 24th July, 2017. According, to Mr. Kedar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner husband has, by the cogent evidence, established that the respondent was living in adultery, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance from the petitioner. However, the learned Magistrate has wrongly the dismissed the application for cancellation of maintenance and the said finding was wrongly confirmed by the Revisional Court.

7. Mr. Kothari, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 wife submits that single instance of sexual intercourse is not sufficient to constitute adultery. It is for the petitioner to establish that the respondent wife was continuously living adulterous life. According to the learned counsel, no independent evidence is produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Yawal for cancellation of the maintenance on the ground of adultery. It is for the petitioner husband to prove the alleged adultery of the respondent in the proceeding before the Magistrate by leading evidence to that effect. So, according to the learned counsel for t