A decree for restitution of conjugal rights is binding on the wife and she cannot maintain an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. unless she has a just ground for refusing to cohabit with her husband.

1. THE parties were married according to Muslim rites on March 20, 1978. A daughter was born of the wedlock in or about December, 1979. THE wife has been living with her parents since May 18/19, 1980. THE husband gave notice on 6th September, 1980 under registered cover asking her to return within a week from the receipt thereof and resume cohabiation. THE wife applied for maintenance under section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure on 15th September, 1980 in the court of the Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter she replied to the notice aforesaid on September 23, 1980. THE husband filed a suit for restitution of conugal rights in the Civil Court on October 1, 1980. THE suit was decreed by the trial court on September 3, 1981 with the finding that the alleged cruelty on part of the husband against the wife was not made out. THE Judicial Magistrate allowed the application for maintenance filed by the wife on 4th February, 1 83 and directed the husband to pay her at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month In respect of the decree passed by the Civil Court in the proceedings relating to the restitution of conjugal rights, it was observed that the decree had not become final since this was under appeal. THE wife appealed against the decree; a criminal revision was filed by the husband. Botn were heard by the Additional District Judge (Special Judge) and decided by separate judgments dated March 20, 1984. In the appeal, it was found that the wife did not have just ground to live apart. THE finding of the trial court on the point of absence of cruelty was affirmed. THE appeal in consequence was dismissed In the criminal revision he recorded the finding that in view of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed against the wife she could not maintain the said application as at present. THE revision was accordingly allowed.

2. THE plea taken by Smt. Mehtab Begum hereinafter referred to as the appellant in defence to the suit for the restitution of conjugal rights was that her father had given dowry to Ansar Ahmad in the amount of nearly rupees twenty- twenty-five thousand in the marriage. THE respondent, however, was not satisfied and he used to demand a Scooter, Television set and also Rs. 5,000/- in cash. It is also alleged that he is an addict to gambling and liquor and indulged in beating her. On May 18/19, 1980 he returned home at about mid night and required her to fetch Rs. 5000/- from her parents. When she declined she was beaten and turned out of the house. This also is precisely the ground taken by her in the application filed for grant of maintenance. THE husband maintains on the contrary that there is no ill treatment mered out by him to the wife and that instead the appellant and her parents have been desirous that he should live apart from his family to which he is not agreeable. His version about the incident dated 18th May, 1980 is that two of the brothers of the appellant came over to his residence and took her away on a false pretext, namely, that the father had suffered heart-attack. It is claimed that he has been prepared all along to keep the appellant with himself and to maintain her also. Aggrieved against the appeal being dismissed by the court below in the civil proceedings and the revision in the matter of Section 125 Cr. P.C. being allowed, Smt. Mehtab Begum has preferred the second appeal and the criminal revision respectively. With the consent of the counsel for the parlies both were heard together.

3. THE concurrent finding recorded by the courts below in the civil proceedings is to the effect that there is no reliable evidence to prove that the husband used to indulge in beating the appellant or that he made demand of a scooter, television set or any amount in cash. It was also found that it is not proved that he is addict to liquor and gambling. There was some incident on the night of May 18th/19th, 1980 but the true version with respect thereto appears to be distorted on both sides. THE appellant has b