1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner is directed against an order dated 16th December, passed in Criminal Revision No. 114/2010, by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Jaura, District Bhind, whereby the order dated 8th July, 2010 passed in Criminal Case No. 05/2010 by the Judicial Magistrate, Jaura was partly confirmed and the monthly maintenance allowance awarded to the respondent/wife and her son was reduced up to Rs. 1,200/-.

2. The facts in short, just for the decision of this petition is that the respondent, was married to the petitioner and she is his legally wedded wife. Out of their wedlock, one child was born. That child is residing with his wife, who at present is residing with her parents. It is alleged by the petitioner that one Bharat Gujar forcibly kidnapped his wife and created obstructions in their marital life.

3. The petitioner filed the petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was pending. It is stated that during proceedings the respondent did not turn up to resume marital relations nor submitted any reply. It is also admitted that the respondent was willing to return back to her matrimonial house, but since last as criminal case was pending, she was inclined to return. The petitioner alleged that the respondent had the independent source of income to maintain herself. The respondent-wife categorically denied the allegations of the petitioner. She contended that the petitioner for illegal demand of money and articles, tortured her mentally and physically. He forcefully exiled her from her matrimonial house. She has no source of income to maintain herself. The petitioner is a shop-vendor and has the sufficient source to maintain her. After considering the submissions of both the sides, the learned Trial Court awarded a sum of Rs. 1,500/-, as monthly maintenance to the respondent-wife. Against that a revision was preferred in which the monthly maintenance amount awarded to the respondent-wife was reduced to Rs. 1200/-. hence, this petition.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the orders by the Trial Court as well of Revisional Court both are passed in mechnical manner and without application of mind and also against the provisions of section 125 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Revisional Court while passing the impugned order ignored the material fact that the respondent-wife is living adulterous life with one Bharart Gurjar, hence she is not entitled to maintenance from her husband. It is further contended that during proceedings in the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, she did not intend to return back to her matrimonial house. Therefore, it was prayed that the petition be allowed and the order impugned be quashed

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand, contended that there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the Courts below and, therefore, no interference is called for.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. A perusal of the the provisions of section 125 (4) of CrPC makes it clear that a stray act of adultery on the part of the wife does not amount to adultery within the meaning of section 125 (4) and further does not disentitle the wife to maintenance. The expression "living in adultery" connotes a course of adulterous conduct more or less continuous and not occasional

8. In the case of Aleti Jagdeeshwari v. Aleti Bikshaparhy. 1998 CriLJ 2503 (AP) and M.P. Subramniyam v. T.T. Ponnakshiammal, AIR 1958 Mys. 41 = 1958 CriLJ 397, it is observed :-

"After careful consideration of the law on the point, we are of the opinion that it is not a stray act or two of adultery that dis-entitles a wife from claiming maintenance from her husband; but it is a course of continuous conduct on her part by which it can be called that she is living an adulterous life that takes away her right to claim the said maintenance. It i