V. B. RAJU, J. ( 1 ) AN order for maintenance was passed against the Petitioner. Subsequently he obtained a decree for judicial separation against the wife. On this ground he made an application to the learned Magistrate to cancel the maintenance order. The learned Magistrate refused to cancel or vary the maintenance order and he rejected the application of the petitioner. ( 2 ) UNDER section 488 (4) Criminal Procedure Code no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband if she is living in adultery or if without any sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband or if they are living separately by mutual consent. It is therefore clear that if without any sufficient reason the wife refused to live with her husband she is not entitled to receive maintenance Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 489 Cr. P. C. reads as follows :- where it appears to the Magistrate that in consequence of any decision of a competent civil Court any order made under section 488 should be cancelled or varied he shall cancel the order or as the case may be vary the same accordingly. It is therefore clear that the Legislature has given more importance to the decision of a civil Court on points such as this. ( 3 ) UNDER sec 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act the husband is entitled to judicial separation. Sec. 10 (1) (a) of the said Act reads as follows :- either party to a marriage whether solemnized before or after the commencement of the Act may present a petition to the District Court praying for a decree for judicial separation on the ground that the other party (a) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The Explanation to sec. 10 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act also reads as follows :- in this section the expression desertion with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party and includes the willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage. It is therefore clear that a decree for judicial separation should not be passed if the wife without sufficient reason does not live with her husband. The fact that a decree for judicial separation has been passed means that the wife has no reasonable ground not to live with her husband. In such a case it is clear that sub-sec (4) of sec. 488 Cri. Pro. Code applies and the wife is not entitled to maintenance. In such a case therefore the order for maintenance must be cancelled ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the opponent relies on Mailappa v. Sivagami 1964 (1) Cri. L. J. 242 wherein it has been held by the Madras High Court as under :- the effect of the Civil Court decree for judicial separation was not to cancel the order of maintenance nor did the Court purport to cancel the order for maintenance. The mere fact that re Civil Court had given an inconsistent finding was by itself not sufficient ground to cancel the order for maintenance made by the criminal Court. It was no doubt open to the petitioner husband to have independently proved that he was willing to take the respondent and that the order of maintenance should be cancelled on account of the continued wrongful refusal by the respondent. But that was not the plea in this case. Therefore the petition for cancellation of the order could not be entertained. With great respect for the reasons already given having regard to the wording of sec. 10 (1) (a) and the Explanation to sec. 10 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act and having regard to the wording of sub-section (4) of sec. 488 Criminal Pro. Code it is very difficult to agree with the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court. Criminal proceedings under sec. 488 Criminal Procedure Code are somewhat summary. The Legislature has therefore given more importance to the Civil Court decisions. 488 Criminal Pro. Code it is very difficult to agree with the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court. Criminal proceedings under sec. 488 Criminal Procedure Code are somewhat summary. The Legislature has therefore given more importance to the Civil Court decisions. If there is inconsistency between the decision of the Criminal Court and the decision of the Civil Court in such a matter the decision of the latter prevails although ordinarily the decision of the Civil Court is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the opponent wife relies on Fakruddin v. Bai Jenab A. I. R. 1944 Bombay 11 But that case relates to a decree for conjugal rights and not a case for a decree of judicial separation. Ordinarily in such a case if a final decree for judicial separation is passed the order for maintenance should be set aside. But in this case I am told that the decree of the Civil Court is now the subject matter of a First Appeal to the High Court. ( 6 ) THEREFORE it is ordered that if the wife gives security to the satisfaction of the lower Court for the maintenance of be paid from the date of application before the Magistrate final order should be passed on the petitioners application for cancellation after the first appeal in the High Court against the decree for judicial separation is decided. If she does not give security for the amount that may be paid as maintenance the order for maintenance should be cancelled. If the wife wins her appeal in the High Court against the decree for judicial separation it is open to her to make an application before the Magistrate for canceling the order of cancellation. .