The legal principle established is that the phrase 'living in adultery' in S. 488 denotes a continuous course of conduct, requiring more than occasional lapses from virtue, and occasional lapses from virtue long before the time of maintenance application do not disentitle a wife from relief under S. 488.

1. The revision petitioner is one Nesamma whose claim for maintenance under S. 488, Criminal Procedure Code against her husband was disallowed by the learned Stationary First Class Magistrate of Neyyattinkkara. The petitioner alleged that while she was living with her husband, her husband developed an illicit intimacy with Sarada his brother's wife who was residing in the neighbourhood. When the petitioner protested, she was man-handled and sent away to her own house. The husband while denying these allegations alleged in his turn that as his wife was leading a loose life he had to sever his connections with her in 1956 and denied his liability to maintain such a wife. He further alleged that for some time she was living in adultery with one Evans who is now no more.

2. The petitioner denied the aspersions against her morals made by the husband and she and three witnesses gave evidence in support of her husband's misbehaviour with Sarada and the consequent ill-treatment and separation. Sarada was also examined as a witness for the petitioner. Though she denied having anything to do with the respondent, she did hot support respondent's case that the petitioner was leading a loose life. The respondent gave evidence that on one occasion when he returned home after work at 9 in the night fee saw Evans in his wife's company in his room and they quarrelled over it. When he left for Trivandrum a few days after that she began to live in the house of Joyce the aunt of Evans with whom Evans was staying. He produced Ext. P-1 letter alleged to have been written to him by the petitioner. Two witnesses who were cited by him supported his case that one night in 1956 Evans was found in the company of the petitioner in her husband's room and the husband and wife had a quarrel over that. They added that few days after that the petitioner was found living in the house of Evans's aunt for some days and then she left the place to live with her parents.

3. The learned Magistrate after disbelieving the petitioner and her witnesses found "that the petitioner lived with Evans till his death and was leading a loose life" and on that ground he rejected her claim for maintenance.

4. It may be mentioned even at the outset that the finding that the petitioner was living with Evans and leading a loose life is based mainly on Ext. P-1 letter alleged to have been sent by the petitioner to the respondent on 28-4-1959 wherein she has, confessed her moral lapses. The petitioner denied the letter and repudiated its contents. Four money order coupons and the petitioner's vakalath' were filed for

comparison of her signature and handwriting The learned Magistrate made a comparison and entered a finding that the letter was written and signed by the petitioner. Even apart from the fact that comparison of signature and hand-writing is no sure test I must say this finding of the learned Magistrate is unsustainable. In the first place the money order coupons and the vakalath do not contain any writing by the petitioner except her name in the Malayalam and her signature in English and offer little or no scope for a reliable comparison of hand-writing. As for her signature it is quite clear that the disputed signature bears no similarity to the admitted ones. The English letter 'N' in her name Nesamma in Ext. P-1 is a capital letter whereas in the money order coupons and vakalath the name begins with the small 'n'. The signature in Ext P-1 is also lacking in boldness and the smooth flow found in the admitted ones Moreover a reading of the contents of the letter would convince anyone that the letter is not genuine because the admissions in the letter far from furthering the purpose of the letter which was to effect a reconciliation seem to have been deliberately put in by way of defence to any possible action for maintenance on the part of the writer and her children if born. The failure to make mention of the letter in the written statement seems to indicate that