1. In this revision, Mr. T. Chandrasekhara Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the orders of the two courts, directing his client to pay maintenance or what is called, in the orders, as starving allowance, to the respondent herein at Rs. 12-50 per month.

2. The quantum of the amount allowed as maintenance does not loom large in this C. R. P. and in fact when the two courts have concurrently found that if maintenance is to be granted to the respondent, then having due regard to the sources of income of the petitioner and the means, if any, available to the respondent, Rs. 12.50 has to be paid per month, obviously the petitioner cannot challenge that question alone, in this court under S.115 of the Code.

3. But the contention that has been taken is a larger one namely, that under the circumstances, in which the petitioner asked for judicial separation, as against respondent and later on also obtained a divorce alleging and establishing unchastity on the part of the respondent, the latter has no right at all to be awarded any maintenance whatsoever, under S.25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 25/1955.

4. It is necessary to set out briefly the circumstances, under