JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a petition in revision against the order of the Subdivisional Magistrate, Angul, dismissing anVOL. XXIX application by a Hindu wife u/s 488(3) Code of Criminal Procedure for enforcing an order for maintenance passed against her husband (opposite party) in 1961. In C.P. III Case No. 21/171 T of 1951 the opposite party was directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 15/- (Rs. 12/- for the Petitioner and Rs. 3/- for her daughter Kesini). Several executions had been taken in the past and the application under challenge was filed en 18-4-1962 for realisation of arrear maintenance amounting to Rs. 180/- for the period of one year from 16-4-1961 to 16-4-1962. The opposite party objected saying that he was ready and willing to maintain her and that consequently execution should not proceed. 2. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner is the second wife of the opposite party. The first wife is alive and it is not denied that she is living with the opposite party. The Petitioner refused the offer of the opposite party relying on the second paragraph to the first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 488 Code of Criminal Procedure which runs as follows: If the husband has contracted marriage with another wife or keeps a mistress it shall be considered to be a just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him. The learned lower court thought that as the Petitioner married the opposite party with full knowledge that his first wife was living she could not avail of the advantage of the aforesaid paragraph of the first proviso to Section 488(3) Code of Criminal Procedure and that, in vie, of the husband's offer to maintain her, there was no sufficient cause for her to refuse to live with him. In support of this observation, Mr. R.N. Sahu for the opposite party contended that the benefit of the aforesaid provision will be available only to the discarded first wife when the husband had married a second wife and cannot be availed of by the second wife if he goes back to his first wife. In support of this contention he urged that the words "has contracted marriage with another wife" occurring in the aforesaid paragraph should, as a matter of construction, be held to refer to the second marriage and not to the earlier marriage. In support of this contention he urged that the words "has contracted marriage with another wife" occurring in the aforesaid paragraph should, as a matter of construction, be held to refer to the second marriage and not to the earlier marriage. He could however cite no authority in support of such a narrow view. Mr. Mohanty for the Petitioner invited my attention to the case reported in Kunti Bala Dassi Vs. Nabin Chandra Das, where it was held that the word "has contracted" have a different connection from the word "contracts" and that the benefit of the said paragraph will be available even for the second wife. 3. In this connection the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 may be noticed. Under Clause (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of that Act, a Hindu wife is entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance "if he has any other wife living". The 1 word 'other' in this clause makes it a absolutely clear that it is immaterial as to whether the wife is the first wife or second wife. Apparently the principle seems to be that if a man has two wives he cannot insist that both of them should remain with him under the same roof and each of them is entitled to separate residence without forfeiting her claim to maintenance. Hence I am not inclined, in the absence of authority to accept the narrow construction put forward by Mr. Sahu for the opposite party that a second wife who has married the husband knowing that his first wife is alive cannot take advantage of the second paragraph to the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 488 Code of Criminal Procedure. It must therefore be held that the Petitioner has sufficient cause for refusing to accept the offer made by the opposite party 4 and 5. His Lordship deals with the question of Res Judicata. 4. The revision is allowed, the order of the lower court is set aside and that Court is directed to issue a warrant for realisation of arrear maintenance due at the rate of Rs. 12/- (rupees twelve only) and take further steps permitted by law for recovery of the same. Final Result : Allowed