JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - This revision is preferred against an order u/s 488, Code of Criminal Procedure directing the Petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife, the opposite party. 2. The opposite party, the admitted wife of the Petitioner, instituted this proceeding u/s 488, Code of Criminal Procedure for realising maintenance from the Petitioner. In a previous proceeding u/s 488, Code of Criminal Procedure initiated by the opposite party against her husband, the Petitioner, a compromise was effected between them on 20-12-1966. Therein the parties agreed to stay together in peace and amity as husband and wife, but it was expressly agreed between them that if in future the husband creates any such difficulty for the wife or the wife is driven out of the house without any satisfactory reason, the husband would be found to pay Rs. 40/- per month, or the equivalent therefor, towards the maintenance of the wife. The wife, opposite party herein, filed the present petition as she was again driven out of the house and was not given food and shelter by her husband inspite of the aforesaid compromise arrived at in 1966. 3. The Petitioner has taken a second wife who is living with him, as expressly admitted by him in his cross-examination. Mr. Ghose, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the order granting maintenance is bad in law in the absence of a finding in the impugned order about present neglect or refusal on the part of the Petitioner to maintain the opposite party; and that the mere fact of a second marriage cannot by itself establish such neglect or refusal within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure so as to entitle the opposite party to get maintenance from the Petitioner. In support of the above contentions Mr. Ghose cited the decision in Bela Rani Chatterjee Vs. Bhupal Chandra Chatterjee. It is held therein as follows: Whatever might be the personal law of any wife, she must, in order to entitle her to an order under Sub-section (1) of Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure, establish, iater alia, that there is a present neglect or refusal on the part of her husband to maintain her. Bhupal Chandra Chatterjee. It is held therein as follows: Whatever might be the personal law of any wife, she must, in order to entitle her to an order under Sub-section (1) of Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure, establish, iater alia, that there is a present neglect or refusal on the part of her husband to maintain her. The mere fact of a second neglect marriage cannot ipso facto establish "such neglect or refusal" within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure, for, a man may marry a second time and still not refuse to maintain his first wife. In our view, the mere fact that a husband has contracted marriage with another wife or keeps a mistress cannot, without more, be said to amount to neglect or refusal on the part of the husband to maintain his wife within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure. Their Lordships of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Mst. Biro Vs. Behari Lal while expressing disagreement with the above Calcutta view, observed as follows: On a careful consideration therefore, of the authorities cited before us, we are of the opinion that the fact that the husband has contracted second marriage is by itself a sufficient ground to entitle the wife to an order for maintenance and this is a just ground as contemplated by the proviso to Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure, applicable to this State. In this connection the view expressed by Narasimham, C.J. in Pratima Musammat v. Gouranga Sahu 1963 C.L.T. 370, though on different facts, may profitably be quoted here: 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 be has any other wife living". The word "other" in this clause makes it absolutely clear that 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. 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. Section 18(1) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 provides: 18. Maintenance of wife (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime. So in the case of Hindus, merely on the proof of the husband taking a second wife, the other wife will be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance, if, as provided u/s 18(3) of the said Act, she is not unchaste and does not case to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion. Therefore, her living separately from her husband, under the above circumstances would be a just ground to get maintenance from her husband. Moreover, whatever may be the personal law of the parties in such a case, on the express wordings in the explanation added to the first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure, the mere proof of the husband contracting a marriage with another wife would be just and sufficient ground for his wife to refuse to live with her husband, and in that case the husband has to maintain the wife in her separate residence, act failure to do so by itself would amount to 'neglect or refusal' as per Sub-section (1) of Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure. I get support for my above view from the decision in Gouribala Jana Vs. Nityananda Jana which is as follows: what the law, as it stands now, says, is, in effect that, the fact of a second marriage provides just ground to the wife's refusal to live with the husband, and if the husband either neglects or refused to munitioned in the wife at that separate residence, that amounts to the neglect and refusal mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case the Petitioner, the husband, has contracted a second marriage and is living with her. In the present case the Petitioner, the husband, has contracted a second marriage and is living with her. The husband also seriously can tests the opposite party's claim for maintenance an grounds which are not sustainable under the various provisioner of Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure. On these circumstances and in the above view of the matter it was needless fer the opposite party to adduce express proof of neglect or refusal an the part of her husband to maintain her. Thus the opposite party's claim far maintenance cannot be questioned by the Petitioner and the contest put forwasd by him would not be of any avail. 4. In this case, however, there is ample proof of neglect and/or refusal, by the husband, the Petitioner, to maintain the opposite party, his admitted wife. There was a previous proceeding u/s 488, Code of Criminal Procedure against the Petitioner on the opposite party's allegation that her husband, after taking a second wife, ill-treated and turned her aut of his house, and the said proceeding ended in a compromise between the parties, as the husband agreed to maintain her in peace and amity. In the present case she deposed to the effect that only about a month after the aforesaid compromise her husband, the Petitioner herein, quarrelled with her, did not give her feed and shelter and drove her aut of his house. Her evidence on this aspect has not been successfully assailed. Thus, the elements of 'neglect or refuel' as per Sub-section (1) of Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure have also been established in this case. On such facts, and the discussions made above, the contentions put forwasd by Mr. Chose are without any force or substance. 5. It was next contended by Mr. Chose that the present petition fjeld by the opposite party is not maintainable in law as, by this she, In effect" prays for the execution of the terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties in a previous proceeding u/s 488, Code of Criminal Procedure, for which there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure; and, (ii) no fresh cause of action has been pleaded in the said petition. These contentions, on the facts of the case, are also not tenable. These contentions, on the facts of the case, are also not tenable. The case made out by the opposite party in the Court below was that in accordance with the compromise arrived at in the previous proceeding she went to her husband's house and stayed with him for some time, which fact was also admitted by the Petitioner. She stated in her deposition in the Court below that her husband, the Petitioner herein quarrelled with her did not give her food and shelter and ultimately drove her out of the house. She therefore bad to file this fresh petition u/s 488, Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus it is not correct to say that the present petition before the Court below was only for executing the terms of the previous compromise. It has been held in Nathuram Vs. Smt. Ramsri that when an application u/s 488, Code of Criminal Procedure is dismissed on the ground that the husband and the wife had come to terms and the wife had started living with the husband, she can make another application if the husband later refuses or neglects to maintain her. The cause of action in such a case would be fresh one. In this case, on the facts stated above, there is absolutely no doubt that there is a fresh cause of action, and because of the Petitioner's second marriage there is always a continuing cause of action, for the opposite party herein, to prefer such a petition u/s 488, Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. The quantum of maintenance granted in favour of the opposite party was arrived at on the hasis of the amount which the Petitioner had agreed to pay to the opposite party, in the compromise arrived at in 1966, in case there would be a fresh cause for the wife to stay separately from him. Thus, there is no reason for me to interfere with the amount so ordered to be paid to the opposite party as maintenance u/s 488, Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. On the above considerations, there is no merit in this revision, and it is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed