The Court held that the discretion granted to the Magistrate under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to determine the quantum of maintenance is not absolute and must be exercised on sound judicial principles, considering the equities of each case.

I.D.Dua, J.

1. This order will dispose of Criminal Revisions 1254 of 1958 and 1272 of 1958; the former has arisen out of a recommendation made by the learned Sessions Judge. Sangrur, that the order of the Magistrate 1st, Class, Malerkotla, dated 9-10-1957 be modified so far as maintenance allowance o£ Romesh Inder minor is concerned. The Magistrate had ordered that a sum of Rs. 200.00 per month be paid to the minor child by way of maintenance from the date of the original application; the learned Sessions Judge to whom a petition for revision was preferred recommends that Major Joginder Singh, the father of the minor, should be ordered to pay only a sum of Rs. 50.00 pxsr month by way of maintenance to the minor child and that also from the date of the order of the Magistrate.

2. Criminal Revision 1272 of 1958 is directed against the order of the learned Magistrate as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge with respect to the maintenance to Bibi Raj Mohinder Kaur wife of Major Joginder Singh.

3. Major Jiogihder Singh, the petitioner in the two revisions before me, and Bibi Raj Mohinder Kaur were married to each other sometime in August 1944 and Romesh Inder, nick named Snelly is their child. Bibi Raj Mohinder Kaur filed an application under Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming maintenance for herself and for the minor son Romesh Inder alleging that Major Joginder Singh had from the very beginning been extravagant, with the result that his salary and other allowances did not seem to be enough to meet his ever-growing expenses. He used to take money from his wife which her parents used to give her, and in fact she also had to borrow money from her brothers and sisters to help her husband bring a car from England. On return from abroad he actually began to avoid the petitioners (i e., his wifes) society and in fact requested the Government for permission to re-many.

In the circumstances she was constrained even to move the military authorities requesting them not to permit her husband to re-marry and indeed to induce him to keep her and to treat her as bis wife. Major Joginder Singh, however, did not improve and his behaviour went from bad to worse. She also asserted to have written to the military authorities several letters including those on 17-10-1953, 25-10-1954 and 20th of October 1955 in this connection and even requested the authorities to see that arrangements for her maintenance and for the maintenance of the child were properly made. She further stated that the military authorities wrote back that she should get her claim for maintenance established in a Court of Law and then send that order to the army authorities for execution. It is in these circumstances that she filed the present application claiming Rs. 250.00 per month as maintenance for herself and a similar amount per month for her child.

Major Joginder Singh admitted the applicant to be his wife and Snelly to be his son, who was horn in the Lady Dufferin Hospital, Patiala, but denied the other allegations made in the petition. He pleaded that Bibi Raj Mohinder Kaur was not entitled to claim maintenance because she had not behaved well towards him and that she did not perform her marital obligations properly; it was also alleged that she had taken to an independent life of her own accord and that she did not agree to come to live with him in spite of all possible efforts made by him and by his relatives. In so far as the maintenance for the child is concerned, he admitted his obligation to support him but he submitted that he was prepared to give tho child education in a good school and that there had been no neglect or refusal on his part in this connection. Two issues arose for trial on the pleadings of the parties.

1. Has the respondent neglected or refused to maintain the applicant and her son?

2. To what amounts of maintenance the applicant and her son are entitled?

4. Bibi Raj Mohinder Kaur herself went into the witness-box and also p