( 1 ) THIS petition is filed bv Basavanappa the husband of the respondent as against the orders psssed by the IT Additional Munsiflf and. JMFC. Second Court Dharwar in Misc. Case No. 58 of 1970 and confirmed bv the Sessions Judge, Dharwar in Criminal Revision Application No. 32 of 1971. ( 2 ) THE few facts necessary for decision in this case may be narrated briefly as follows: the respondent Parvatavva filed LC. Suit No. 155 of 1959 against the petitioner Basavanappa her husband in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dharwar, praying for a decree towards maintenance. That suit was contested and a decree was passed. The learned Civil Judge, directed that the respondent was entitled to Rs. 200 per year towards her maintenance from her husband Basavannappa, the petitioner Then the respondent filed Misc. Case No. 58 of 1970 in the Court of the II Addl. Munsiff and JMFC. , Dharwar. under S. 488 Crpc. making out a case that her husband the petitioner Basavannappa had neglected her and had refused to maintain her. She claimed maintenance from him. The petitioner contested the claim on the ground that there was already a decree passed against him in LC. Suit No. 155/1959 and therefore the respondent was not entitled to proceed with an application under S. 488 Crpc. He also contended that the claim made by the respondent-wife at Rs. 200 per month was highly excessive as his income was not Rs. 12,000 per year as alleged by her. ( 3 ) IT has been urged in both the Courts below that existence of the decree in LC. Suit No. 155 of 1959 operates as a bar to entertain applications under S. 488 Crpc. The same point is canvassed before me by Shri b. V. Deshpande learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. But there is a catena of decisions of Bombay High Court, Calcutta High court, Punjab High Court and Madras High Court holding that existence of a decree passed by a Civil Court for maintenance of a wife is no bar for a proceeding under S. 488 Crpc. S 488 Crpc. does not lay down that jurisdiction of a Criminal Court would be barred in case there already existed a decree passed by a competent Civil Court in regard to maintenance of a wife. S 488 Crpc. does not lay down that jurisdiction of a Criminal Court would be barred in case there already existed a decree passed by a competent Civil Court in regard to maintenance of a wife. Therefore it is seen that if the conditions mentioned in s. 488 Crpc. are established a wife is entitled to an order of maintenance under that provision in spite of a decree having been passed in her favour previously by a Civil Court. There can be no doubt that this question whether a decree of Civil Court would bar an action under S. 488 Crpc. would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. When a finding as to the status of the partiete has been pronounced by a Civil Court, that would be conclusive in a proceeding under S. 488 Crpc. In the case on hand the finding that Paravatavva the respondent is the wife of Basavanappaa the petitioner has been already recorded by the Civil Court in lc. Suit No. 155 of 1959. ( 4 ) IN Mohommed Ali Mitliabai in re, AIR. 1930 Bom. 144. , it has been held that a mere decree of a Civil Court awarding maintenance is no bar for proceeding under S. 488 Crpc. The same is the view expressed by the Bombay high Court in re: Taralakshmi Manuprasad, AIR. 1938 Bom. 499. . The judgment is pronounced by a Bench consisting of Beaumont CJ. and Sen, J. Beaumont, cj. speaking for the Bench has specifically laid down therein that decree of the Civil Court for maintenance does not oust the jurisdiction of a magistrate to make an order under S. 488 Crpc. ( 5 ) IN Saraswati Debt v. Narayam Das, AIR. 1932 Cal. 689. it is pronounced that jurisdition under S. 488 Crpc. is not ousted by a previous agreement between husband and wife in regard to maintenance. The Punjab High Court in gurdial Singh v. Jang Singh, AIR, 1959 Pun. 185,has held that a previous compromise between the parties in regard to maintenance does not oust the jurisdiction of a Magistrate in awarding maintenance by exercising his powers under section 488 Crpc. ( 6 ) MANY of these above cited decisions have been considered by the madras High Court in Govindaswami Mudaliar v. Muthulakshmi Ammal, (1966) 1 Mad. 185,has held that a previous compromise between the parties in regard to maintenance does not oust the jurisdiction of a Magistrate in awarding maintenance by exercising his powers under section 488 Crpc. ( 6 ) MANY of these above cited decisions have been considered by the madras High Court in Govindaswami Mudaliar v. Muthulakshmi Ammal, (1966) 1 Mad. L. J. 208 it has been held therein that there is nothing in S. 488 Crpc. which bars the remedy under it because of the existence of a decree of a Civil court for maintenance and that the question whether a decree of the civil Court would bar an action under S. 488 Crpc. would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. I respectfully agree with the principles enunciated in the above cited decisions. Therefore this noint canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has to fail. ( 7 ) SHRI B. V. Deshpande, nextly urged that the evidence on record shows that Parvatavva was trading in bangles and therefore was deriving income therefrom. He further urged on this basis that the two Courts below have ignored this aspect of the matter while fixing the quantum of maintence amount. The evidence produced discloses that it is sufficient to establish that Parvatavva was following a profession, namely, trading in bangles. But the petitioner has not produced any conclusive evidence to establish what actually was the income derived by Parvatavva from pursuing this profession. In the absence of such material, in my opinion, it is not possible to contend that any particular amount of income should be taken into consideration while assessing the liability of the petitioner- husband to pay a particular amount as maintenance to Parvatavva. This contention therefore has to fail. ( 8 ) MR. Deshpande, made an attempt to contend that the quantum of rs. 25 per month awarded by the learned Magistrate is too high in the very nature of things. The order passed by the two Courts below discloses that both have taken into consideration the quantum of maintenance awarded to Parvatavva in LC. Suit No. 155 of 1959 while fixing this amount of rs. 25 per month in this proceeding. The amount awarded by that decree is Rs. 200 per year and that too in the year 1959 or so. That would not be even Rs. 20 per month. Suit No. 155 of 1959 while fixing this amount of rs. 25 per month in this proceeding. The amount awarded by that decree is Rs. 200 per year and that too in the year 1959 or so. That would not be even Rs. 20 per month. It can hardly be said that such an amount is sufficient to maintain oneself in these hard days. An amount of Rs. 25 now fixed by the two Courts below would augment this amount fixed by the Civil court and the total would be even then less than Rs. 45 per month. Tn my opinion, even this sum is hardly sufficient to maintain oneself in these days. In view of these circumstances, I am unable to see any force in this contention put forward by Shri B. V. Deshpande. ( 9 ) THIS petition therefore is dismissed. --- *** --- .