1. The revision petitioner was directed by the thief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur in M. C. No. 18 of 1978 filed under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 80 per month to his wife, the respondent herein. This order is challenged now. The revision petition came up for consideration before one of us (Bhat, J.) and the matter was referred to a Division Bench as there appeared to be an apparent conflict between the decisions of two learned single Judges of this Court on one of the points involved in this case.

2. The revision petitioner (C. pw. 1) married the respondent herein (Pw. 1) on 13-6-1971 in accordance with the customs of their community. Two children were born in the wed-lock M. C 11 of 1976 filed by the wife before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur claiming maintenance from C. pw. I under S.125 of the Code, was allowed. In Crl R P. No 35 of 1976 before the Sessions Judge, Trichur an offer made by the husband was considered and he was directed to reserve tickets within a period fixed by the court for the wife and children to go to Bangalore where he is employed. The reservation was not made and the Crl. R.P. No. 35 of 1976 was dismissed. C pw. 1 filed Crl. M P. No 639 of 1977 before this Court under S.482 of the Code The petition was disposed of, allowing C. pw. 1 to take his wife and children with him to Bangalore within a particular time. He took them to Bangalore and they lived together.

3. pw. 1 alleges that after some time he brought her to Trichur and by fraud, coercion and intimidation obtained her signatures in some documents without her consent and left her and the children at her father's house and she later came to know that one of the papers so signed (Ext. D2) is a divorce agreement. Immediately she filed M. C. 18 of 1978 for maintenance. C. pw. 1 resisted the claim on the ground that by virtue of Ext. D2, by mutual consent the marriage has been dissolved and they are living separately and therefore she is not entitled to maintenance from him. At the stage of evidence he offered to maintain her in case she lives with him. Learned Magistrate on a consideration of the entire evidence held that Ext. D2 does not make out a valid divorce and the marriage is still subsisting, that there was no agreement between the parties to live separately, that the offer made by C.Pw. I is not bona fide, that she has no means of her own and he has means to maintain her and accordingly ordered him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month for her.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner urged three contentions before us First, that from Ext. D-1 and Ext. D-2 it can be inferred that the parties are living separately by mutual consent and therefore under S.125(4) of the Code she is not entitled to separate maintenance; second, that though it is for the husband to show that she refuses to reside with him, burden is on the wife to show that there are sufficient reasons for her refusal and the burden has not been discharged by her and the lower court has taken a wrong view on burden of proof; and third, that the offer made by him must be accepted as genuine and bona fide.

5. The contention regarding living separately by mutual consent is based primarily on Exts. D-1 and D-2. Ext. D-1 bears pw. 1's signature on revenue stamp and is dated 11-12-1977. In Ext. D-1 pw. 1 purports to state that monthly maintenance must be paid to the two children at the rate of Rs. 90/- till they attain the age of 18 years, that if the jewellery mentioned therein is returned and the maintenance amount due to the children is paid, she is prepared to have a divorce from her husband. Ext. D 2 is a registered marriage dissolution agreement signed by both parties on 12121977. It recites that there were misunderstandings for some time, that they feel that if the marital tie is to continue it may lead to unfortunate consequences and therefore as per the document their marital