JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - This revision application arises out of a proceeding u/s 488, Code of Criminal Procedure. Smt. Aisha Begum filed an application for maintenance against her husband Badruddin. Her case was that she and her husband lived together for six years. When the applicant fell ill, her husband abandoned her, and contracted a second marriage. Smt. Aisha Begum, therefore, claimed maintenance from her husband. Badruddin offered to keep his wife in his house, and declined to pay her maintenance. The learned Magistrate held that Smt. Aisha Begum was entitled to live separately from her husband, and ought to get maintenance from her husband. The court, therefore, ordered, Badruddin to pay Smt. Aisha Begum maintenance at the rate of Rs. 60 per month. A revision application filed by Badruddin was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge of Kanpur. Badruddin has, therefore, come to this Court in revision. Smt. Aisha Begum was Badruddin's first wife. He conceded that he has contracted another marriage. The learned Magistrate held that, in view of Badruddin's second marriage, the first wife is entitled to live separately from her husband. The Court relied upon the following clause appearing in Sub-section (3) of Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure: If a husband has contracted marriage with another wife or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him. 2. If this provision is effective, Smt. Aisha Begum is obviously entitled to live separately from her husband. 3. But Mr. Sadiq Ali appearing for Badruddin attacked that part of the provision of Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure on a variety of grounds. He urged that that provision violates the fundamental right of Musalmans. It was urged that the provision violates Article 25 of the Constitution. Clause (1) of Article 25 is in these terms: Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. 4. Mr. Sadiq Ali relied upon The Commr., The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt., AIR 1954 SC 282 . 4. Mr. Sadiq Ali relied upon The Commr., The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt., AIR 1954 SC 282 . In that case their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that, the guarantee under the Constitution of India not only protects the freedom of religious opinion but it protects also acts done in pursuance of a religion, and this is made clear by the use of the expression "practise religion" in Article 25. 5. Mr. Sadiq Ali's argument is that, it is a fundamental right of a Muslim to have four wives. I do not agree. It may be that under the Personal Law of Muslims a Muslim may have as many as four wives. But I do not think that, having more than one wife is a part of religion. No authority was cited to show that it is obligatory upon a Musalman to have more than one wife. So any legislative requirement to the effect that a Musalman may not have more than one wife does not amount to interference with freedom of conscience or interference with the right to profess, practice and propagate religion. I, therefore, do not think that any provision of law in favour of monogamy involves violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. Secondly, Mr. Sadiq Ali contended that, the provision under consideration is in contravention of Act XXVI of 1937 (The Muslim Personal Law (Sharait) Application Act, 1937). Section 2 of that Act states: Notwithstanding any custom or usage to the contrary, in all questions ... including ... maintenance ... the rule of decision in cases where the parties are muslims shall be in Muslim Personal Law. 6. This section clearly lays down that, in matters of maintenance Muslims shall be governed by Muslim Personal Law. 7. In Mulla's Mohammadan Law, thirteenth edition, the husband's duty to maintain his wife has been discussed in Section 277. The husband is bound to maintain his wife so long as she is faithful to him and obeys his reasonable orders. But he is not bound to maintain a wife who refuses herself to him, or is otherwise disobedient, unless the refusal or disobedience is justified by nonpayment of prompt dower. The law of maintenance laid down in this section is somewhat different from the law of maintenance laid down in Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure. But he is not bound to maintain a wife who refuses herself to him, or is otherwise disobedient, unless the refusal or disobedience is justified by nonpayment of prompt dower. The law of maintenance laid down in this section is somewhat different from the law of maintenance laid down in Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure. I, therefore, agree with Mr. Sadiq Ali, there is some conflict between Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure and the Personal Law of Muslims as regards maintenance. The question is whether Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure ought to be enforced in spite of that conflict. 8. Section 6 of Act No. XXVI of 1937 contains a list of Acts and Regulations, which have been repealed by that Act. Section 6 of that Act contains no reference to the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is nothing in Act No. XXVI of 1937 to suggest that, there was any intention to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure in its application to Muslims. 9. Sub-section (2) of Section 1, Code of Criminal Procedure describes the extent of the Code: It extends to the whole of India.... But, in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing herein contained shall affect any special or local law now in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed by any other law for the time being in force. 10. It will be seen that the Code applies to the whole of India irrespective of castes or communities. Obviously, it applies to Muslims also. But Mr. Sadiq Ali contended that, Section 1(2), Code of Criminal Procedure is subject to any special or local law now in force. It was urged that, Act No. XXVI of 1937 is a special law as contemplated by Section 1(2) Code of Criminal Procedure I do not agree. Special Law mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 1, Code of Criminal Procedure is some special law laying down any special rules of criminal procedure for governing certain special cases. Act No XXVI of 1937 does not lay down any special rules of criminal procedure. Act No. XXVI of 1937 merely lays down certain rules as regards applicability of Muslim Personal Law to Muslims. Act No XXVI of 1937 does not lay down any special rules of criminal procedure. Act No. XXVI of 1937 merely lays down certain rules as regards applicability of Muslim Personal Law to Muslims. I am, therefore, of the opinion that, in spite of the passing of Act No. XXVI of 1937, Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure applies to Muslims also. 11. Mr. Sadiq Ali further contended that, even if Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure applies to Muslims, the court is bound to consider the personal law applicable to Muslims. It is true that even the criminal court has to take into consideration the personal law applicable to the parties before the court. It has, however, to be noted that, Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure lays down a summary procedure for giving maintenance to wives and children. For such a summary proceeding, the summary procedure prescribed by Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure has to be followed. Section 489, Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates that the decision of a competent civil court may be different from an order passed by a criminal court. In such a case a criminal court may have to modify its order in the light of a decision by a competent civil court. But in the absence of any such decision by a civil court, the criminal court has to follow the procedure prescribed by Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure. One of the provisions is that if a husband has contracted marriage with another wife, it shall be considered to be a just ground for his first wife's refusal to live with him. The civil court may not accept the principle laid down in Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure. But a criminal court dealing with an application for maintenance is bound to follow that provision contained in Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure. I, therefore, agree with the learned Magistrate that, Smt. Aisha Begam was entitled o live separately from her husband, and is entitled to get maintenance. 12. Lastly, I have to consider the question of the amount of maintenance. Badruddin keeps a workshop at the Mall, Kanpur. He said that his income from the workshop is Rs. 125/ - per month. On the other side there is evidence to the effect that, Badruddin's income is about Rs. 400/ - or Rs. 500/ - per month. 12. Lastly, I have to consider the question of the amount of maintenance. Badruddin keeps a workshop at the Mall, Kanpur. He said that his income from the workshop is Rs. 125/ - per month. On the other side there is evidence to the effect that, Badruddin's income is about Rs. 400/ - or Rs. 500/ - per month. In view of these figures quoted by the parties, and the locality of the shop, it was open to the learned Magistrate to come to the conclusion that Badruddin's monthly income is about Rs. 300/ -. 13. Having arrived at the conclusion that Badruddin's monthly income is Rs. 300/ -, the learned Magistrate proceeded to fix Smt. Aisha Begam's monthly allowance at the figure of Rs. 60/ -. In reaching this conclusion the learned Magistrate took into consideration that Badruddin has to maintain a second wife also. It cannot be said that the allowance granted to Sm. Aisha Begam is excessive. 14. The revision application is dismissed. The stay order dated 29-6-1955 is vacated. The learned Magistrate's order dated 10-9-1954 will stand.