Judgment :- 1. This Criminal Revision Petition by the wife is directed against the order of the District Magistrate, Quilon under S.488 (5) Criminal Procedure Code cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour on the ground that she was living in adultery. 2. The order awarding maintenance to the wife and child was passed on 9 41962. The husband did not challenge that order and it has become final. As he did not pay any amount in pursuance of the order, the wife took steps to realise the arrears of maintenance and when he was served with notice, he came out with the petition by way of reply to the notice. It was alleged in the petition that he, a minor at the time, was forced to marry the revision petitioner who was leading a loose life and had conceived through some one else and that she is continuing to lead an open immoral life and was living as the wife of one Aradan. The allegations were refuted by the wife. 3. The petitioner and five witnesses were examined to prove that the wife was living in adultery with Aradan. pw.1 Raghavan, a shop-keeper living half a mile away from the petitioner's house said that he had seen Aradan meeting her at her work-spot and talking to her and that on one occasion they had purchased a bun from his shop and on another he saw them going to the cinema theatre. He has been seeing them for the past seven or eight years. But he is definite that from their behaviour he did not get the impression that they were living as man and wife. Though Aradan is admittedly living within a few yards of the woman's house this witness was not in a position to say where Aradan lives or whether he has a wife and children. pw. 2 says that the woman had been working in his coir fibre business for six months in the year 1961 and that Aradan used to take her back after work. He has also seen them going together from the market. But he is not sure whether they were living as husband and wife. He admits that he is not acquainted with Aradan and knows nothing about him. pw. He has also seen them going together from the market. But he is not sure whether they were living as husband and wife. He admits that he is not acquainted with Aradan and knows nothing about him. pw. 3 Kunju Pillai Kurup says that for the past five or six years he has seen Aradan in the house of the petitioner and he had seen them together in the market. He added that from their movements he felt that they were man and wife. Though he poses to be the next door neighbour of the woman he is not even sure who are living in the house. Naturally his evidence that Aradan was seen by him in that house day and night is false. He was not in a position to deny the definite suggestion that his son is employed in the petitioner's bakery. pw. 4 says that the woman and Aradan used to go to his shop and take tea. He had also seen them going to the cinema and he says that they were behaving like man and wife. Though he poses to be a neighbour he admits that he has never gone to the house of either the petitioner or the respondent. pw. 5 lives three furlongs away from the wife's house. According to him the revision petitioner and Aradan were seen together in the hospital near his house and had felt that they were living as man and wife. He says Aradan 'lives in the petitioner's house. He does not know whether Aradan has a wife and children. He is not sure whether Aradan is being employed by the revision petitioner's father for catching fish. Admittedly he saw them together in the hospital seven or eight years ago and not at any time after 9 41962. 4. This in short is the evidence in support of the finding that the woman is living in adultery with Aradan. It is vague, indefinite and inconclusive. Even if the entire evidence is taken at its face value it proves nothing more than that Aradan was frequenting the house of the woman and was seen in her company in the market, hospital and occasionally on their way to the cinema. It is vague, indefinite and inconclusive. Even if the entire evidence is taken at its face value it proves nothing more than that Aradan was frequenting the house of the woman and was seen in her company in the market, hospital and occasionally on their way to the cinema. pw.1 whose evidence was misread by the learned District Magistrate is positive that their conduct did not give him the impression that they were living as husband and wife and pw. 2 to whom such a suggestion was made also said that he was not sure of it though the court seems to have thought otherwise. pws. 3 to 5 who gave evidence subsequently were prepared to say that it appeared to them that the woman and Aradan were living as man and wife, but the data on which they based their opinion do not justify the impression they gathered. Aradan is a married man of 50 or 55 with a wife and children. He is employed by the father of the woman in his fish trade. The woman is living with her parents and brothers. Nobody has detected her in any compromising situation. No Church authority or the parents of the woman, who is a Christian, moved their little finger against the woman living with a stranger under their very nose. 5. Another point to be noted is that an order granting maintenance to a wife can be cancelled under Sub-Section (5) only upon proof that the wife was living in adultery subsequent to the order and the Magistrate is riot entitled to go into the question of adultery prior to the date of the order. In this case the order granting maintenance was passed on 9 41962. The evidence of pws. 3 to 5 does not lead to any inference that the parties appeared to be living as man and wife during the relevant period. General and indefinite assertion about the past conduct of the parties is of no consequence. Accord-ding to the respondent the wife had been living in adultery with Aradan for the past seven or eight years and if that is so one would have expected him to seek for a cancellation of the order of maintenance much earlier than 9111962 when the wife sought to enforce the order. pw. Accord-ding to the respondent the wife had been living in adultery with Aradan for the past seven or eight years and if that is so one would have expected him to seek for a cancellation of the order of maintenance much earlier than 9111962 when the wife sought to enforce the order. pw. 3 would fix the period generally as five or six years, pw, 4 does not specify any period and pw. 5 who began by saying that he had been seeing them for the past seven or eight years had to end up by admitting that the last time he saw them was seven or eight years ago. 6. The learned Magistrate has completely lost sight of the scope and meaning of the expression "living in adultery" in sub-sections 4 & 5 of S.488 Criminal Procedure Code. I cannot do better than to adopt the connotation given to the phrase by Newsam, J. in Lakshmi Ambalam v. Andiammal AIR. 1938 Mad. 66: "Now I understand the phrase, "living in adultery," to mean something quite different from living an unchaste life. The principle, it seems to me is that a husband is absolved from the obligation to maintain his wife when his wife has a de facto protector with whom she lives and by whom she is being maintained as if she were his wife. The obligation of a husband to maintain his wife arises from the anxiety of the Legislature to protect deserted wives from the bitter necessity of earning a living by trading on their sex. That obligation however ceases when it has been voluntarily assumed by some man other than the woman's husband. No woman can fairly claim a right to be kept by two men." It is well settled that in a proceeding for cancellation of an order of maintenance, the evidence of adultery should not be "general and inconclusive but specific and cogent." The law is so stringent and affords little laxity in interpretation that courts have held that maintenance should not be discontinued solely on account of a single act of adultery on the part of the wife vide Gopaldeo v. Ratni 30 Criminal Law Journal 403; even the birth of an illegitimate child is not brought under clause (5) to cancel an order previously passed (vide Paiki v. Vishvanath 9 Criminal Law Journal 390). While fully realising that by the very nature of the offence it may not be possible to furnish direct evidence of adultery, courts should expect something better than the mere "hole and corner tattle or bazaar gossip" that is available in this case. 7. The learned District Magistrate has evidently missed the real point arising for decision and has clouded the issue by incorporating in his judgment quotations from here and there without digesting them or considering their relevancy. For instance the following passage from AIR. 1953 Vindhya Pradesh 28 at 31 quoted in the judgment viz., "Between an occasional lapse and life as a common prostitute there are gradations of increasing impurity. Where an occasional lapse deepens into a life of adultery it is a question of fact depending upon the brazen ness of the conduct." One fails to see the relevancy of the passage in this case where not a single instance of lapse from virtue is alleged or proved. In another portion of the order he has observed that a "chaste wife has to lead a life above suspicion." The learned counsel for the revision petitioner complains that the learned Magistrate's view about chastity has clouded the issue and considerably prejudiced his client. The maxim is a commendable one and no one can take exception to it as a rule of good conduct. A wife can and should be chaste but we very often find that a neglected wife cannot escape the wagging tongues of scandal mongers and slanderers of both sexes who seldom care for the truth of what they gossip about. Living in adultery as envisaged in the Criminal Procedure Code is something different from failing to lead a chaste life untainted by any suspicion and in an enquiry under S.488 (5) we are not concerned with chaste women. The law absolves "husband when his wife gets a de facto protector by whom she is maintained as if she is his wife. The law does not allow a neglected wife to be maintained by two men. Living in adultery refers to an outright adulterous conduct where she lives in a quasi permanent union with the man with whom she is committing adultery. When the position of law is this the copy book maxim that a chaste wife should lead a life above suspicion has no relevancy. Living in adultery refers to an outright adulterous conduct where she lives in a quasi permanent union with the man with whom she is committing adultery. When the position of law is this the copy book maxim that a chaste wife should lead a life above suspicion has no relevancy. The learned Magistrate seems to have taken the maxim too much to heart that substituting suspicion for evidence he has penalised the wife by cancelling an order of maintenance she obtained against the husband after hot contest. In the result the order of the District Magistrate is set aside and the original order of 9 41962 is restored. Allowed.