Order.- This is a revision petition by the husband against the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Devakottai, granting the wife, the respondent, a maintenance of Rs. 30 a month. The facts admitted are that the petitioner married the respondent about 25 years ago, and they were living together for about 10 years. There was some misunderstanding between the petitioner and the respondent ; the petitioner got separated from the respondent and married one Panchavarnam 7 or 8 years ago. There was a Panchayat to settle the difference between the petitioner and the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent refused to live with him according to the decision of the Panchayat. The contention of the petitioner that the respondent was divorced, was not accepted by the trial Court. It is also not seriously disputed that the petitioner had married Panchavarnam as his second wife. It was suggested that, as the petition under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, for maintenance was not filed by the respondent for a long number of years, it would indicate that the petitioner and the respondent were living separately by mutual agreement. Apart from the suggestion, there is no evidence to prove that the respondent, in any way, consented to waive her right to maintenance and live separately. Mr. Gopinathan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the fact that the petitioner had married a second wife, is by itself not a sufficient ground for the wife refusing to live with him, and that, as the wife has refused to join him, he cannot be held guilty of neglect or refusal to maintain the respondent. The learned Counsel submitted that, under section 488 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, when an order under section 488 (1) is sought to be enforced, the Court may consider whether the refusal by the wife to live with the husband is reasonable. In construing that, it is provided that, if the 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. The contention of the learned Counsel is that the Proviso is applicable only to section 488 (3) and not applicable to section 488 (1). In construing that, it is provided that, if the 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. The contention of the learned Counsel is that the Proviso is applicable only to section 488 (3) and not applicable to section 488 (1). The contention is probably right ; but that would not preclude the trial Court from considering the fact of the husband’s second marriage as sufficient ground for the wife’s refusal to live with him in deciding the case of neglect or refusal by the husband to maintain the wife. Section 488 (4) provides that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband if she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason. The Hindu Married Women’s Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act (XIX of 1946) provides that a Hindu married woman shall be entitled to separate residence and maintenance from her husband, if the husband marries again or keeps a concubine in the house or habitually resides with a concubine. Under this Act, the fact that a husband has married a second time, confers a right on the married woman to separate residence and maintenance. Therefore if the husband marries a second wife after the passing of the Act, the refusal by the first wife to live with her husband will be for sufficient reason under section 488 (4), Criminal Procedure Code, and if he fails to provide the first wife with separate residence and maintenance, he will be guilty of neglect or refusal to maintain her and will be liable under section 488 (1), Criminal Procedure Code. It was faintly argued that the right conferred under Act XIX of 1946 cannot be availed of by the first wife, as the Hindu Marriage Act (XXV of 1955) prohibits marriage between two Hindus when either party has spouse living at the time of marriage. As the second marriage would be invalid, the contention is that the first wife will not be entitled to plead that the husband had married again. It is unnecessary to consider this question, as under Act XIX of 1946 the first wife is entitled to separate residence, if the husband keeps a concubine in the house or habitually resides with a concubine. It is unnecessary to consider this question, as under Act XIX of 1946 the first wife is entitled to separate residence, if the husband keeps a concubine in the house or habitually resides with a concubine. Even if the second wife is denied the status of the wife, it will amount to the husband keeping a concubine or habitually residing with her. This argument is unsustainable for another reason also. Under section 488 (4), Criminal Procedure Code, when the first wife refuses to live with her husband, whether he has married validly or not, she will be doing so for sufficient reason entailing the husband to maintain her under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Counsel relied on a decision of a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Sm. Beta Rani v. Bhupal Chandra1, where it was held that it would not be permissible to pray in aid the provisions of the Hindu Married Women’s Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act for the purpose of construing sub-section (1) of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. It was observed that the mere fact of a second marriage could not ipso facto establish such neglect or refusal within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. This decision is not in conformity with the view taken by this Court in Bayanna v. Devamma2, where Govinda Menon, J., (as he then was) held that under section 2 of the Hindu Married Women’s Rights to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act when the husband took a second wife, the first wife was entitled to live separately and claim separate maintenance and so her residing separate was legal, and that once she resided separately, the duty of the husband was to give her separate maintenance. This decision was referred to and followed by Sadasivam, J., in Kandaswami Goundar v. Nachammal3. The learned Judge did not follow the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Sm. Bela Rani v. Bhupal Chandra1. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed in Bayanna v. Devamma2, and Kandaswami Goundar v. Nachammal3. The contentions of the learned Counsel fail. Regarding the quantum of maintenance, I am unable to say that the amount is excessive. The petition is dismissed. R.M. ---------- Petition dismissed.