Order.- The discord between a husband and wife with a step-mother in between is the cause of this revision petition. When this petition came up for hearing before me there was a fervent appeal by the petitioner-husband that he was prepared to take back his wife, the first respondent here, and live with her amicably. He exhibited undue anxiety to get her back. He appeared before me and showed extreme affection and love towards his wife. I, therefore, directed the parties to be brought before Court. They came to Ernakulam and I was told by Counsel appearing for the respondents that there was no love lost between the husband and wife and there was no possibility of any reconciliation. Hence the revision was heard on merits. 2. The first respondent-wife filed M.C. No. 14 of 1972, under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, on 10th April, 1972 against the petitioner claiming maintenance for herself and her three children, who are respondents 2 to 4 in this revision. O.S. No. 84 of 1972, on the file of the Munsiff of Ottappalam, was filed by the wife on 15th March, 1972 claiming maintenance for herself and her children. The said suit is pending. When the petition under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, came up before the lower Court, a preliminary objection was raised that in view of the pendency of a civil suit, wherein also maintenance is claimed, the lower Court was barred from proceeding with the petition under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. It is worthwhile mentioning here that on 6th April, 1972 the petitioner-husband had filed O.P. No. 6 of 1972, before the Munsiff’s Court, Ottappalam, for restitution of conjugal rights. There is also another suit pending before the Ottappallam Munsiff’s Court, which was filed by the petitioner against the first respondent here and her step-mother, numbered as O.S. No. 281 of 1970, which was a suit to set aside the assignment deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the first respondent and her step-mother. it is said that this suit is the apple of discord between the parties. The lower Court repelled the preliminary objection raised and it is against this that the present revision is filed. 3. it is said that this suit is the apple of discord between the parties. The lower Court repelled the preliminary objection raised and it is against this that the present revision is filed. 3. The only contention raised before me is that the pendency of the civil suit, wherein the identical question is raised, operates as a bar for the Magistrate to hear the petition filed under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate observed that the pendency of the civil suit cannot be a bar for trial of the petition under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. According to him, proceedings under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code are provided as a cheap and speedy remedy and the parties cannot be expected to wait till the civil suit is disposed of, which can be subjected to first appeal and second appeal. The learned Magistrate also felt that even if the order of maintenance is passed by him and a decree is passed subsequently there are enough safeguards for the husband to move the Court under section 489, Criminal Procedure Code, for appropriate remedies. I feel that the learned Magistrate has stated the question of law correctly in making this observation. 4. Before proceeding to discuss the case, some of the authorities which were cited before me may be adverted to. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision reported in Ross v. Ross1. In that case, an application under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, was filed when a petition for divorce was already pending and a Division Bench of the Sind High Court held: “Where the civil Court is seized of the matter, it is better that the civil Court should dispose of it. High Court should stay proceedings in criminal Court until the conclusion of the divorce petition”. Their Lordships observed that the learned Magistrate would have exercised a better discretion on receiving the application under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, against a husband who has already instituted proceedings in the Divorce Court to have referred the applicant for her remedy to the civil Court. This is the only case cited by the petitioner wherein it has beep held that an application under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, should wait the disposal of a simultaneous civil proceedings pending. This is the only case cited by the petitioner wherein it has beep held that an application under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, should wait the disposal of a simultaneous civil proceedings pending. With great respect, I am not in a position to agree with the observation of the learned Judges, or to accept the principle laid down in that decision. 5. Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, provides for a salutary remedy available to the wife and children and the mere pendency of a civil suit cannot be put forward as a defence to defeat their interests. To do so will be to deny the barest necessities of life to them. Once a civil Court passes a decree it is always open to the Magistrate who dealt with the petition under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, to make appropriate alteration or modification in conformity with the decree of the civil Court as laid down in section 489, Criminal Procedure Code. 6. In David Daniel v. Chinnanma Daniel2, Sadasivan, J., was dealing with the claim for separate maintenance of the wife when there was already a decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by the husband against her. The learned Judge considered the impact of the decree on the claim for maintenance and held that the wife was not entitled to separate maintenance. That is not the position here. 7. In State v. Nagappa3, the question that arose for consideration was the effect of the decree of a civil Court for maintenance after an order under section 488, Criminal Procedure Cede, for maintenance was passed by the Magistrate. There, it was held that the order of criminal Court under section 488,Criminal Procedure Code has to be subordinated to the decree of civil Court relating to maintenance. 8. In Nagendramma v. Ramakotayya4, it has been laid down that petitions under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, should not be instruments of harassment on the husband. It cannot to said that the application in this case under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, is in any manner a harassment to the husband. These authorities do not, in my opinion, advance the case of the petitioner that in view of the pendency of the suit in the civil Court, section 488, Criminal Procedure Code petition should be stayed till the disposal of the civil suit. 9. These authorities do not, in my opinion, advance the case of the petitioner that in view of the pendency of the suit in the civil Court, section 488, Criminal Procedure Code petition should be stayed till the disposal of the civil suit. 9. The learned Counsel for the respondents brought to my notice the decision reported in Saraswathi Ammal v. Harirama Serva and another1. There, Sadasivan, J., held that the criminal Court, no doubt, must respect a decree passed by the civil Court wherein the identical question comes up for determination. His Lordship further observed: “But in a proceeding under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, the sole point to be considered is whether the husband has neglected or refused to maintain his wife and children. The mere passing of a decree by the civil Court from which no benefit has accrued to the wife is no answer to a petition under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. The mere existence of a civil Court decree is no consolation for the wife; she must get her maintenance and for that all that she is expected to prove before the Magistrate is that the husband has neglected and refused to maintain her. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, is not in any way affected by the civil Court passing a decree for maintenance. If the Magistrate thinks that in spite of the decree of the civil Court the husband continues to neglect the wife, and refuses to maintain her, a petition under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, can be entertained by him, and decided on its merits”. This decision lends some support to the submissions advanced by the respondents’ Counsel that even if there is a decree of a civil Court regarding maintenance, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to hear a petition under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, is not barred. The mere existence of a decree on paper is poor comfort to the neglected and starving wife. What is needed is sufficient maintenance to support her. In the case on hand, only a civil suit is pending and it cannot be said that the pendency of a civil suit would oust the jurisdiction of the Magistrate or prohibit him from proceeding with and deciding the petition under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. What is needed is sufficient maintenance to support her. In the case on hand, only a civil suit is pending and it cannot be said that the pendency of a civil suit would oust the jurisdiction of the Magistrate or prohibit him from proceeding with and deciding the petition under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. Neither the pendency of the suit for maintenance nor the pendency of the suit for restitution of conjugal rights can be an effective bar for the Magistrate to consider and dispose of the application under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner is at liberty to put forward his case that the wife is not entitled to separate maintenance in view of the suit filed by him for restitution of conjugal rights. Proceedings under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, cannot therefore be thwarted by the plea that a civil suit is pending. 1 am in perfect agreement with the observations of the learned Additional First-Class Magistrate in repelling the objections raised by the petitioner. I do not find any merit in this petition. 10. In the result, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. M.C.M. ---- Petition dismissed.