A single act of adultery is not sufficient to disentitle a wife from claiming maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr. PC; a course of continuous adulterous conduct is required.

1. - The main miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr. PC is hereby disposed of

2. Ali Mohammed filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr. PC against the judgment dated 12-2-1986 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur by which he dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner.

3. Smt. Zaida filed an application under Section 125 Cr. PC in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Kherwada. She alleged that she was married with Ali Mohammed some 10 years before and had three children from this marriage. Ali Mohammed one year after the marriage started quarrelling with her, used to beat her and he wanted to turn her out from the house on making false allegations against her. He has also married another woman, so she claimed maintenance allowance.

4. Ali Mohammed contested this application. He admitted that he was married with Zaida but denied all other allegations. He has also admitted his marriage to another woman. He had taken a plea that the character of the petitioner Zaida is not good and she is living adulterous life. She was found in the room of Maulana Akbar Ali on one night in presence of so many persons and he had divorced her.

5. The trial court framed four issues. The first issue was with regard to leading adulterous life. The third issue was with regard to maintenance allowance.

6. The first issue is the only material issue in this case. The allegation of Ali Mohammed the petitioner is that Smt. Zaida is leading an adulterous life and she was caught in the room of Maulana. Number of persons were called there and she was found there. On this issue both the parties have led evidence and after discussing the evidence the learned trial court has come to this conclusion that Mst. Zaida had bodily and physical relation with Maulana Akbar Ali. Inspite of this finding the trial court was of this opinion that this is a solitary instance which does not prove that Mst. Zaida is leading an adulterous life. Hence he decided issue No. 1 against Ali Mohammed. On issue No. 3 after considering the statement of both the parties the trial court fixed Rs. 150/- per month as maintenance allowance and granted this allowance from 29-4-1980.

7. Ali Mohammed felt aggrieved with this order of the trial court preferred an appeal in the Sessions Court which was disposed of by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur vide order dated 12-2-1986. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not agree with the contentions of Ali Mohammed and ultimately rejected the revision petition and confirmed the order of the trial court.

8. Ali Mohammed has now preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C.

9. Mr. Kala, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that Section 125 Clause (4) Cr. PC is the relevant clause for deciding this petition. Section 125 is with regard to order for maintenance to wife and children Sub-section (4) of this section says that no wife shall be entitled to receive allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery. Pointing out the relevant words "living in adultery," it was argued that Ali Mohammed has proved by his evidence that Smt. Zaida had relations with Maulana Akbar Ali. It is also proved from the statement of witnesses that Maulana Akbar Ali admitted before them that Mst. Zaida used to come to him While referring the statements and the portion of the order of the trial court where he had discussed the entire evidence it clear that not only the day when Smt. Zaida was caught at the room of Maulana but Maulana had admitted that previously also she used to come Thus this is not a solitary instance but from the statements of the witnesses it is clear that Smt. Zaida was habitual in corning to Maulana's house and both have physical relations with each other. It was also argued that even on a solitary instance it was held that the wife is living in adultery. To support his contention he has cited Gokul Prakash Cure v. Dhanbhai, 2 (1982) DMC 66 . This was a case under th