( 1 ) THIS petition under S. 482, Cr. P. C. is directed against a revisional order dated 7-8-1984, passed by IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore, in Criminal Revision No. 27 of 1983, thereby quashing the order of maintenance dated 20-1-1983, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Indore, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 860 of 1977 awarding maintenance allowance of Rs. 100/- per month to the petitioner from 2-7-1982. Aggrieved by this order, the wife has presented this petition.

( 2 ) INITIALLY, none appeared for the respondent, but Shri Maheshwari made his appearance when the order which was being dictated upon hearing the petitioner, was at its fag end, and requested the court to afford him an opportunity of being heard, as he was busy before the Division Bench and as such could not make his appearance when the case was called. He also made an application (I. A. No. 118/90 ). He was accordingly heard on merits of the case, allowing his prayer.

( 3 ) THE trial court has found it as a proved fact that respondent-husband had contracted second marriage with one Godavaribai, who was also examined as a witness (A. W. 1 ). She has deposed that the respondent had married her sometime in the month of March 1974, but on coming to know, that he was already married, she (Godavaribai) withdrew from his society.

( 4 ) THE fact of second marriage stands amply proved by her evidence and further corroborated by Ganpat (P. W. 2) and the priest Vidhyadhar Pandit (P. W. 3), performing the marriage. It is needless to add that this second marriage on the part of the respondent-husband affords a justifiable ground to the petitioner to live separately from him and still claim maintenance allowance.

( 5 ) SHRI Maheshwari while supporting the impugned order has, however, vehemently assailed this finding on the point of second marriage. According to him, neither the timing of alleged second marriage is established nor was there any specific pleading raised by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the order passed by the revisional court did not call for any interference. He has also invited attention to revisional court's rejection of I. A. No. 1 and placed on record few documents, which he urged to be considered.

( 6 ) THE revisional Court, while upsetting the finding recorded by the trial court, has applied a queer logic in coming to the conclusion that it was the wife-petitioner-Gangabai, who had wilfully deserted the respondent, her husband and as such, she was not entitled to claim any maintenance whatsoever.

( 7 ) THE above finding, petitioner's counsel argued, is perverse, in face of evidence available on record. As per allegations made in the application and evidence, the petitioner had gone to her parents on the eve of Makar Sankaranti as her mother eventually suffered from paralysis, she was required to stay back for a couple of months, during which period even the respondent had been visiting her.

( 8 ) THIS cannot be said to be 'desertion', as understood in law, by any stretch of imagination, as wrongly held by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. In its essence desertion means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other's consent and without reasonable cause. It is a total repudiation of the obligations of marriage. Desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state of things.

( 9 ) IN a petition under S. 125, Cr. P. C. what is required to be seen is, whether there is sufficient reason for the wife to live separately from her husband? While the petitioner was required to stay back in order to attend her ailing mother, who was suffering from paralysis, a new development took place. Respondent-husband contracted a second marriage with one Godavaribai a fact already held to have been proved by the trial Court. In such circumstances, she had sufficient reason to live apart from her husband.

( 10 ) PROCEEDINGS under S. 482, Cr. P. C. cannot be allowed to be converted