( 1 ) THE applicant/husband has tiled this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order passed by the Courts below awarding maintenance of Rs. 100/- per month to the non-applicant.

( 2 ) THE married mere married long back and as a result of the wedlock, the non-applicant gave birth to five children, out of which four are with the applicant and one Sitabai is with the non-applicant. Sometime in 1983, the applicant turned her out when she was carrying pregnancy of the child Sitabai. The applicant intended to marry another woman. She, therefore, through a written notice (Ex. P-i), demanded maintenance. On account of noncompliance, she filed the petition claiming Rs. 200/- per month for self and Rs. 100/- per month for the child.

( 3 ) THE applicant/husband opposed the application on various grounds, including the ground of adultery. According to him, the non-applicant is leading adulterous life with one Jagdish. The applicant also raised the plea of divorce in a caste panchayat and, therefore, be was free to so in for second marriage.

( 4 ) THE learned trial Court, on assessment of evidence, held that the non-applicant was living in adultery; and as such, was not entitled to maintenance. Another ground found by the Court was that the non-applicant left the applicants house without any just and reasonable cause. The said Court, granted Rs. 60/per month as maintenance to the child.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the non-applicant filed the revision which was allowed by the Court below and maintenance of Rs. 100/- per month was granted by it from the date of the trial Court's order. Against that order, the applicant has filed the present revision.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant did not challenged the order granting maintenance in favour of the child. This revision is, therefore, restricted to the maintenance awarded to the non-applicant only.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that the Court below was not justified in interfering with the finding of the trial Court that the non-applicant is living in adultery. He further argued that there is no finding as to the income of the applicant, therefore, the award of maintenance is arbitrary and excessive.

( 8 ) WITH the help of counsel for both the parties. I examined the statement of the witnesses with regard to the proof of allegations against the non-applicant. The applicant an N. A. W. 1 had no personal knowledge but learnt from a woman of village Panegagaon that the non-applicant in the company of Jagdish had gone to village Sarkipar. In that village, Shyamdas Kotwar informed that the non-applicant Jagdish had come to his village and left the village at 5 in the evening. Shyamdas Kotwar (N. A. W. 3) stated that one Jagdish of village Chherkhadih with a girl had come to his village. After staying for 2-3 hours, they went. He had noted this fact in his Kotwari Book. After 2 or 3 months, the applicants father came to him to enquire about the aforesaid visit and at that time, the applicants father told him that the said girl was none else but his own daughter-in- law. He also admitted that on the aforesaid disclosure, he recorded in his book the name of the not applicant. Jageshwar Prasad (N. A. W. 2) stated that the non-applicant and one boy of Chherkhadih were produced before him tied in a rope by Kheda Kotwar. Kheda had told him that the said boy had trespassed into the house where the non-applicant was residing. He had referred them to the Sarpanch of the village. Sadawa (N. A. W. 4) has stated about the discussion, which took place in the Panchayat, wherein the applicant had expressly said that the non-applicants character was not good and he is not willing to keep her any more in his house as his wife. There is no other witness to prove the adultery.

( 9 ) THE aforesaid evidence of the witnesses is wholly insufficient to prove the allegations of adultery against the non-applicant. It is well settled