ORDER
Usha Shukla, J.
1. Applicant Prema Bai is the deserted wife of respondent Kanchhedilal. A joint petition was filed by her and her daughter Kanti for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that the respondent had left them unprovided for, and was living in a separate house with another woman. He was admittedly an employee of the vehicle factory being Artisan Grade A, and had sufficient means to maintain them.
2. This petition was filed in September, 1993. It was opposed by the husband who repeatedly averred that both the applicants were women of loose character and that he was living away from his wife since 13.11.1993 in a rented house because he cannot live with this adulterous woman anymore. He alleged that his wife was living with his friend Sampatlal as his wife.
3. The learned trial Judge disallowed the claim of the daughter as she was a married woman. As for the wife, the learned Magistrate held that she had failed to prove that she had any just ground to live away from her husband who had offered to keep her with him as his wife. The petition was therefore dismissed.
4. The wife alone came up in revision against this order. The respondent was duly served with a notice of this revision petition, but he remained absent at the time of final arguments.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that it was established before the Trial Court that the husband had left her and was living away with another woman. The applicant was left a destitute and had no means of subsistence while the husband was earning a handsome salary in the vehicle factory. The offer to keep her was not bona fide and in the face of repeated grave aspersions on her character, the learned Magistrate ought to have held that she had sufficient justifiable reasons for living away from him.
6. Having heard the Counsel for the applicant this Court is of the opinion that the petition must be allowed. The husband-respondent admitted that he had left the matrimonial home and was living away from his wife in a rented house. There is no corroboration to his story of his wife’s alleged adultery with his friend Sampatlal. The story was narrated in his reply to the main petition itself sounds concocted insofar, as he would have it believed that he had surrendered Government accommodation in the year 1973 on account of the affair between his wife and his friend Sampatlal, and yet shifted to the house of this very Sampatlal as his tenant. Furthermore, had the allegation of his wife living in adultery with Sampatlal been true he would not have offered to keep her as his wife as he did before the Court. Moreover, instead of himself leaving the family house, he would have turned his wife out had she been at fault. His contention that he left his wife on 13.11.1993 is also patently false because the petition for maintenance itself had been filed much earlier in September, 1993, alleging that the husband had left home for another rented house which he was sharing with his mistress.
7. Be that as it may, the admitted fact that the husband had deserted the wife coupled with the wanton unproved allegations about her character and chastity provided sufficient justification for the wife’s refusal to live with him and establishes a case for maintenance.
8. The applicant is an illiterate old woman without means. The respondent is an employee of the vehicle factory, and according to his own admission, he was getting Rs. 3,500/- per month as salary. That must have been before the revision of pay under the Fifth Pay Commission. He has no other liability as all his six children are major and married. There is no reason not to allow maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to the wife.
9. This revision petition is, therefore, allowed. The respondent shall pay Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance to his wife Prema Bai from the date of original petition, this is, 21.2.1993.
10. Costs of this petition shall also be borne by the respondent. Counsel fee Rs. 500/- if pre-certified.