IMPORTANT POINT
Normally maintenance is to be awarded from date of order & for allowing maintenance from date of application reasons are to be recorded.

JUDGMENT

P.K. Jain, J- Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist. None appears for opposite party Smt. Bilquees Bano.

2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 21-2-1984 passed by Sri U.C. Dhyani, IInd Addl. Munsif Magistrate (First Class). Bareilly allowing maintenance allowance to the opposite party Smt. Bilquees Barto at the rate of Rs. 150/-per month and at the rate of Rs. 100/-per month to her son Mohd. Shaheb Alam from May, 1982

3. The sole question raised in this revision is whether in view of the admitted facts between the parties Smt. Bilquees Bano was entitled or not to the maintenance allpwance. It may be made clear at the very ouset that so far as Mohd. Shahed Alam is concerned admittedly he has born out of the wedlock between the revisionist and opposite party Smt. Bilquees Bano. At the time of moving of the application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. he was around 6 months old. He has not been made party to the present revision nor there is any justification for setting aside the order of maintenance so far as it relates to Mohd. Shaheb Alam.

4. So far as Smt. Bilquees Bano is concerned, findings of fact of the Court below are that Smt. Bilquees Bano was married to the revisionist one year after divorce between Smt. Bilquees Bano and her first husband Chhotey that at the time of marriage of Smt. Bilquees Bano with the revisionist she knew that Mohd. Ismail was having another wife marriage with whom was in subsistence and that Mohd. Ismail was having sufficient means to maintain the wives including opposite party Smt. Bilquees Bano. The Court below has also observed in its judgment that Mohd. Ismail admitted in the statement dated 27-6-1983 that he had not paid maintenance allowance to Smt. Bilquees Bano since May, June, 1982. It also appears from the admission made by the revisionist that the revisionist was paying maintenance allowance to Smt. Bilquees Bano prior to May, June 1982 although she was living separately. The main plea of the revisionist was that he was ready and willing to maintain her if she lived with the revisionist. The Court below has however held that in the circumstances of the case the wife had sufficient cause not to live with the husband and to claim maintenance allowance.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel that it is the finding of the Court below that prior to her marriage with the revisionist Smt. Bilquees Bano was having illicit relation with the revisionist and at the time of the marriage she knew very well that the revisionist was having another wife and she must have known that she will have to adjust with the first-wife. The Court below observed in its judgment that Smt. Bilquees Bano sometime after the marriage left matrimonial home as she was not able to adjust with the first wife. It is contended that in view of these findings and observations of the Court below Smt. Bilquees Bano was herself responsible for the situation created by her and she cannot claim maintenance allowance by living separately. It is to be noted that the Court below observed that it was the duty of the husband also to see that both the wives lived amicably in the matrimonial home and no efforts appear to have been made by the husband in this regard. Therefore the wife could claim maintenance allowance by living separately.

6. Sub-section (4) of Section 125, Cr. P.C. provides that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery or if without any sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband or if they are living separately by mutual consent. The question that arises for consideration is whether the facts and circumstances stated above constitute a sufficient reason for the wife to refuse to live with her husband so as to entitle her to maintenance allowance by living separately from her husband. Explanation to proviso (2) to sub-section (3) of Section 125, Cr. P.C. provides that if a husb