1. Petitioner-wife challenges the order of the magistrate below declining maintenance to her; and claims maintenance for the children, from the date of application.

2. Counsel for petitioner would submit that denial of maintenance to wife was unjustified. The view taken by the magistrate is that the wife was living in adultery, and that she was not entitled to get maintenance by reason of S.125 (4) of the Code. Learned counsel submitted, referring to the decision in Mercy v. Varghese (1968 KLT. 154), that one or two lapses from virtue will not spell out that the woman is living in adultery. The determination cannot be on a numerical basis. It is not as if there is a limit beyond which it becomes adultery, and until then it is not. The question is whether the adulterous act complained of is a sporadic one, or whether it is a way of life with the woman. The decision cited, did not also proceed on the basis, that the determinative factor is the numerical count. It is not the number of times when the offence is committed, that determines this. For that matter, it will be near impossible in a given fact situation to ascertain with any degree of precision the number of times,