Judgment Shambhu Prasad, J. This application by the husband is against an order under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allowing a maintenance allowance of Es. 50/- per month to his wife, the opposite party before this Court, with effect from 28. 4. 1965 when she made an application before the Sarpanch of her Gram Panchayat. 2. The case of the wife-opposite party was that her husband had become addicted to wine and was keeping company of prostitutes and undesirable women and whenever she protested he used to beat her and ill-treat her so much so that on 28. 6. 1965 he brought her from Dehri, where he was living, to his village home in Tckari and after taking out all the grains from the house locked it and left her in the village uncared for. Her further case was that the petitioner took away all the grains and the two children also with him. The amount of maintenance claimed by her was Rs. 100/- per month and it was stated in the petition which she filed before the Sarpanch, Tekari Gram Panchayat that the petitioner was getting monthly salary of Rs. 130/- plus bonus and also owned of bighas of land. 3. The Sarpanch made some preliminary enquiries and finding that it was not a case which could be heard by him, forwarded the application to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sasaram. The Sub-divisional Magistrate appears to have perused the report of the Sarpanch and the petition on 31. 8. 1 965 (though by mistake he has mentioned in the order sheet the date as "31. 9. 65") and issued notice to the opposite party before this Court to appear on 15. 9. 1965 and state her case. She appeared before the Sub-divisional Magistrate on 15.9. 1965 and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. 4. In his objection petition the petitioner denied the allegations that he was addicted to wine and was keeping company of prostitutes and bad women and that he had left the opposite party uncared for in his village. He further alleged that the opposite party was of bad temper, worst cultured and quarrelsome in nature but he was still prepared to maintain her if she could live a decent life. He further alleged that the opposite party was of bad temper, worst cultured and quarrelsome in nature but he was still prepared to maintain her if she could live a decent life. Both the parties adduced evidence before the Sub-divisional Magistrate in support of their cases and the Sub-divisional Magistrate passed the impugned order in favour of the opposite party. 5. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no finding that the petitioner was keeping a concubine was recorded by the Sub-divisional Magistrate and that he should not have placed reliance on the statement of the opposite party that she apprehended danger to her life from the petitioner inasmuch as she did not attribute any such act to the petitioner from which such an inference could be drawn and, therefore, the order of maintenance was not justified. It was further contended that as the petitioner was prepared to maintain the opposite party if she lived with him, no order for maintenance could be passed in view of Sub• sections (3) and (4) of Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The proviso to Sub-section (3) lays down that if the husband offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him and she refuses to live with him the Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her and may make an order under this Section notwithstanding such order if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Sub-section (4) provides that "no wife shall be entitled to receive allowance from her husband under this Section 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 not the case of the petitioner that' the opposite party, who has refused to live with him, is living in adultery or living separately from him by mutual consent. Therefore, the question which arises for consideration in the case is whether there is any just ground for her refusal to live with her husband or the refusal is without any sufficient reason. 6. Therefore, the question which arises for consideration in the case is whether there is any just ground for her refusal to live with her husband or the refusal is without any sufficient reason. 6. To find out what may be just ground of sufficient reason for refusal by a wife to live with her husband the provisions of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (Act 78 of 1956) may be profitably referred to Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the said Act provides- "(2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance- (a) if he is guilty of desertion, that is to say, of abandoning her without reasonable cause and without her consent or against her wish or of wilfully neglecting her; X X X (e) if he keeps a concubine in the same house in which his wife is living or habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere; X X X." The circumstances in which a wife is entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance under the law by which she is governed, has certainly to be taken into account in determining what is just cause and sufficient reason under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for her refusal to live with the husband. Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also provides that 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. There is no allegation that the petitioner has contracted marriage with another wife or is keeping a concubine in the same house in which his wife is living. The materials on the record also do not show that the petitioner habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere or that he has kept a mistress. The Sub-divisional Magistrate has also not recorded any finding to that effect. Therefore, the refusal of the opposite party to live with the petitioner because she had made an allegation that the petitioner was keeping company with prostitutes and bad women cannot be a just ground or sufficient reason for the opposite party to refuse to live with he petitioner. The Sub-divisional Magistrate has also not recorded any finding to that effect. Therefore, the refusal of the opposite party to live with the petitioner because she had made an allegation that the petitioner was keeping company with prostitutes and bad women cannot be a just ground or sufficient reason for the opposite party to refuse to live with he petitioner. There is also substance in the contention of petitioner's counsel that the materials on the record do not justify an apprehension on the part of the opposite party for life from the petitioner. However, if the opposite party was wilfully neglected by the petitioner, that can be a just ground and sufficient reason for the opposite party to refuse to live with the petitioner because of the provisions of Section 18(2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the" opposite party that the petitioner brought her from Dehri to the village and left her there uncared for has been accepted by the Sub-divisional Magistrate which, undoubtedly, show that the petitioner was wilfully neglecting her. In the circumstances of the case, therefore, the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate allowing maintenance to the opposite party cannot be held to be illegal. 7. Sub-section (2) of Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that monthly allowance for the maintenance shall be payable from the date of the order or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance. "Date of application for maintenance" means date of application to the court which passes the order. The Magistrate, therefore, has erred in ordering allowance from the date the application was made to the Sarpanch. He could pass an order only with effect from the date when he received it, i.e., 31.8.1965 in this case. The order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, therefore, shall have to be modified in this regard and the opposite party shall be entitled to maintenance only with effect from 31st of August, 1965. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the amount of monthly allowance for maintenance was high and contended that if his application failed on merit then it should be reduced to Rs. 25/- per month. In these hard days it may be very difficult for one to maintain himself with rs. 25/- per month. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the amount of monthly allowance for maintenance was high and contended that if his application failed on merit then it should be reduced to Rs. 25/- per month. In these hard days it may be very difficult for one to maintain himself with rs. 25/- per month. However, keeping in view that, as found by the Magistrate, the petitioner is getting only a salary of Rs. 125/per month and has also got children to support, the amount of monthly allowance of maintenance is reduced from rs. 50/- to rs. 40/-. 9. No other point was raised by either side before this Court. 10. Subject to the aforesaid modifications as to the date from which the opposite party will be entitled to monthly allowance and as to the quantum of it, the application is dismissed. Petition dismissed with modification.