ORDER Mohd. Hamid Hussrain, J. - Smt. Savitri Devi has preferred this revision. It arises out of proceedings u/s 488 Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the Applicant Smt. Savitri Devi, is the legally wedded wife of Rama Shankar, opposite party. Both, the Applicant as well as the opposite party Rama Shankar, reside in the city of Varanasi within PS Daseswamedh. The allegations in the application of Smt. Savitri Devi u/s 488 Code of Criminal Procedure are that she during her stay with her husband was illtreated by him. He had picked up bad habits of drinking and gambling and had taken and sold her ornaments for gambling and during her stay in his house she was also beaten by the husband. Ultimately the husband Rama Shankar after giving her a beating turned her out of the house and she had been living with her mother where a son was also born to her from Rama Shankar, that Rama Shankar failed to give maintenance allowance to her as well as to the infant son. This application was opposed by Rama Shankar on the ground that Smt. Sivitri Devi was never turned out of the house by him and he was willing to keep and maintain her in the house. The contesting parties led evidence in support of their respective assertions. 3. The magistrate dismissed the application of the Applicant for maintenance on the grounds, firstly that the maltreatment alleged by the Applicant against her husband was not such as to entitle her to remain separate. Secondly, that the Applicant was prepared to keep her and the child with him and to maintain them. Thirdly that the application for maintenance had been moved after a long lapse of seven years and ought to have been moved within a reasonable time. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the magistrate dt. 20-1-1970 the Applicant went up in revision. The ADM (J) Varanasi Sri S.N. Sharma by his order dt. 18-2-1971 rejected the revision as having no force. The learned Magistrate passed a very cryptic order in rejecting the revision. The first para of the order briefly refers to the case being one u/s 488 Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance and the same having been dismissed by the magistrate and against the dismissal of the application, revision has been preferred. The learned Magistrate passed a very cryptic order in rejecting the revision. The first para of the order briefly refers to the case being one u/s 488 Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance and the same having been dismissed by the magistrate and against the dismissal of the application, revision has been preferred. The actual discussion of the case of the parties and finding on merit in the revision has been dealt with in a small paragraph which is quoted below: I have heard the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of the case. In my opinion there is nothing illegal or perverse in the impugned order so as to call for an interference in revision. The application in revision has no force and it is, therefore, rejected. This impugned order of the ADM (J) can hardly be called an order indicating thereby the consideration of the revision on merits. In the memo of revision preferred in the court of the ADM (J) ten grounds were taken to assail the order of the magistrate. Not one of those grounds have been considered by the ADM nor is there any indication in the above-quoted order that the magistrate even gave a passing thought to the contentions raised before him by the counsel for the Applicant. Ground No. 5 in the memo of revision was that the magistrate erred in rejecting the application for maintenance on the ground of it having been filed after a lapse of seven years. Ground No. 6 in the memo of revision questioned the legality of the order of the magistrate by omitting to consider grant of maintenance to the minor son. 5. After having perused the order of the ADM (J) this Court is constrained to observe that Sri S.N. Sharma, ADM (J) has taken no pains to examine the case on merits and dismissed the revision, by using a common phraseology that in his opinion "there is nothing illegal or perverse in the impugned order". The judgment of the Presiding Officer is expected to contain reasons which prompt him to take a particular view. The case was hotly contested by the parties who led evidence and the trial magistrate has briefly referred to the evidence in his judgment. 6. The judgment of the Presiding Officer is expected to contain reasons which prompt him to take a particular view. The case was hotly contested by the parties who led evidence and the trial magistrate has briefly referred to the evidence in his judgment. 6. Two courses were open to this Court, namely, either to remand the case to the ADM for writing a proper judgment in order to let this Court know his reasons for rejecting the revision or to brush aside the order passed in revision by the ADM and to examine the impugned order of the trial magistrate dt. 20-1-1970. 7. The record shows that this application u/s 488 Code of Criminal Procedure had been moved by the Applicant as far back as 1969. Proceedings u/s 488 Code of Criminal Procedure are meant for giving expeditious relief to a destitute wife and child unable to maintain themselves. In view of this, this Court has chosen the latter course, that is, to examine the merits of the case and the propriety and legality of the order of the magistrate dt. 20-1-1970. 8. Sri A.D. Giri, learned Counsel for the Applicant Smt. Savitri Devi and Sri Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel for the opposite party Rama Shankar have been heard at length and with their assistance the Court has also examined the evidence produced by the parties in the case. 9. Applicant Smt. Savitri Devi examined herself as PW 1 and also produced three other witnesses, namely Jagnandan (PW 2), Amarnath (PW 3) and Sheo Prasad (PW 4); opposite party Rama Shankar examined himself as DW 1 and produced one witness Bhola Nath Tewari (DW 2). (His Lordship then scrutinised the evidence of the witnesses of the Applicant as well as of the opposite party and concluded:) 10. On a scrutiny of the evidence of the witnesses of the Applicant as well as of the opposite party, it is amply clear that the Applicant was maltreated by Rama Shankar at h is house and she had been turned out from the house and since then she had been living at her mother's house where a son was born to her from Rama Shankar. There is no evidence on record to show that from the time of being turned out from the house, the Applicant received any monetary assistance from her husband for maintaining herself and her child. There is no evidence on record to show that from the time of being turned out from the house, the Applicant received any monetary assistance from her husband for maintaining herself and her child. The copies of the applications to the SP and to the DM sent by Rama Shankar also indicate that then was bitterness between the husband and the wife. Smt. Savitri Devi has stated that she apprehended danger to her life and to the life of her son if she went back to the house of her husband. These apprehensions may not be wholly true, but from the material on record the apprehensions cannot be termed an erroneous and therefore, the unwillingness on the part of Smt. Savitri Devi to live with Rama Shankar cannot disentitle her to claim maintenance. 11. Sri Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel has contended that the isolated act of cruelty or assault by the husband on the wife cannot entitle the wife to insist on living separately and claim maintenance. In this connection the learned Counsel has placed reliance on a few decisions reported in AIR 1928 114 (Oudh) . The facts of none of these cases are similar to the facts of the instant case. In the case reported in AIR 1928 114 (Oudh) the question of isolated Act of assault came to be considered in a case u/s 10 of the Divorce Act in which the allegations of adultery were being levelled against the wife. In the case reported in AIR 1932 Oudh 231 the question of cruelty came to be considered in a case u/s 22 of the Divorce Act. 12. In the instant case from the evidence it is established that (1) Smt. Savitri Devi was maltreated in the house of her husband, (2) she had been turned out by the husband, (3) during the period that she stayed with her mother no maintenance allowance either to her or to the minor son was offered or sent by Rama Shankar. It is admitted by Rama Shankar that his son born of Smt. Savitri Devi is studying in the Indra Gandhi Vidyalaya. No evidence has been led by Rama Shankar that ever since the birth of his son he sent any money for his maintenance. It is admitted by Rama Shankar that his son born of Smt. Savitri Devi is studying in the Indra Gandhi Vidyalaya. No evidence has been led by Rama Shankar that ever since the birth of his son he sent any money for his maintenance. Therefore, in the circumstances and on the evidence in this case the Applicant is entitled to maintenance both on grounds of cruelty as well as of neglect. Similarly the minor son is also entitled to maintenance allowance from his father Rama Shankar. 13. A question of limitation has been raised by Sri Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel for opposite party Rama Sankar. According to the learned Counsel, the application for maintenance has been filed by the Applicant after a lapse of seven years of her having been turned out by her husband and it is dearly time barred. For this proposition the learned Counsel has placed reliance on Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963. According to the learned Counsel, Article 137 applies equally to civil applications as well as to applications made under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 137 provides that any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere, shall be filed within three years from the date when the right to apply accrues. In support of this contention the learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision in Ram Kumar Kajaria Vs. Chandra Engineering (India) Ltd., AIR 1972 Cal 381 . In that case the court was considering Article 137 vis a vis Article 181 of the old Limitation Act of 1908 and in that connection the court observed that Article 137 is not restricted only to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure, but it also applied to applications and petitions under other, enactments. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case Sunni Central Board of Waqf v. Khursheed Haidar 1971 AWR 560. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case Sunni Central Board of Waqf v. Khursheed Haidar 1971 AWR 560. In this case Hon'ble K.B. Asthana, J. has observed that: There is no good reason why should the residuary Article 137 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act 1963 be not held to cover in its ambit applications and objections under the special laws or any other law and its language ought not to be interpreted narrowly so as to keep it confined to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure, there being no warrant for it in the phraseology of that Article or in the scheme of the schedule to the new Limitation Act. The above cited case has no applicability to the instant case. 14. In my opinion, Article 137 of the Indian Limitation Act 1963 is not applicable to applications u/s 488 Code of criminal Procedure. Article 137 was incorporated to replace the old Article 181. In the case of Queen Empress v. Ajudhia Singh ILR (1881) All 10 Justice Mahmood while, dealing with a case u/s 195 Code of Criminal Procedure observed thus: I cannot accept this contention, because rules of limitation are foreign to the administration of criminal justice and it is only by specific legislation that the periods of limitation can be rendered applicable to criminal proceedings. In the Limitation Act 1908 no period of limitation was provided for filing of civil revisions or criminal revisions but the different High Courts adopted a rule of convention of 60 days or 90 days in which the civil or criminal revisions were entertained. In the new Limitation Act, 1963, Under Article 131 period of 90 days has been provided for filing a revision under she CPC or the Code of Criminal Procedure. A wife cannot be deprived of her right to claim maintenance merely because she has delayed making the application. The various provisions contained in Section 488 Code of Criminal Procedure will amply show the fallacy in the argument of the learned Counsel about the applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 15. Under Sub-clause (1) of Section 488 Code of Criminal Procedure a wife or a child unable to maintain itself is allowed to claim monthly allowance. The various provisions contained in Section 488 Code of Criminal Procedure will amply show the fallacy in the argument of the learned Counsel about the applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 15. Under Sub-clause (1) of Section 488 Code of Criminal Procedure a wife or a child unable to maintain itself is allowed to claim monthly allowance. Under Sub-clause (2) of that section the magistrate allowing the application for monthly allowance can do so either from the date of the order or from the date of the application for maintenance. Under Sub-clause (3) of Section 488 Code of Criminal Procedure warrant for collection of arrears of maintenance can be only issued to the extent of the amount due for a period of one year even though arrears of maintenance may be due for more than one year. On a consideration of the various provisions of Section 488 Code of Criminal Procedure referred to above, it is evident that the wife and the child can claim maintenance from month to month. According to Sri Sankatha Rui, learned Counsel Under Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963 the application ought to have been moved within three years from the date on which the wife had been turned out of the house and the husband refused to maintain her. The question then arises that if the wife had filed the application for maintenance within three years, would she get maintenance allowance for the period of three years because the application had been filed within three years as envisaged Under Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963 or would she get maintenance allowance only at best from the date of her application in the court of such allowance. Another aspect to be examined in this connection is that u/s 488 Code of Criminal Procedure a wife or minor child who is unable to maintain itself can claim maintenance. In a case in which the wife is turned out by the husband and resides with her parents and she has her own income from property or that she takes up a job such as teaching or any other avocation by which she is able to earn sufficiently to maintain herself, then she would not be entitled to claim monthly allowance u/s 488 on the ground that her husband had turned her out and refuses to maintain her. But if after a lapse of three years the wife be comes victim of further misfortune of losing her property or her avocation can it be said that, though being a legally wedded wife and the husband having turned her out, she would not be entitled to a maintenance allowance because she did not file the application u/s 488 Code of Criminal Procedure within three years. The provision of monthly allowance envisaged u/s 488 Code of Criminal Procedure is to protect the neglected wife from becoming a destitute and falling a prey to the unsocial elements in the society or to take recourse to begging. It is for this reason that the legislature provided monetary protection to a destitute wife and child unable to maintain itself. If in the instant case it had been shown that the Applicant was possessed of sufficient funds to maintain herself then even though the husband may be at fault, he could not be compelled to provide maintenance to her wife. In the instant case Rama Shankar has admitted that his wife does the work of making Bidis and had been living separately from him for the last seven years. Having considered the legal question as posed by the learned Counsel I am of the view that Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963 has no applicability because the right to a wife for maintenance is a recurring right from month to month u/s 488 Code of Criminal Procedure. 16. It has come in the ^evidence of Applicant that her husband Rama Shan-kar is employed in the Bank and his income is Rs. 200/- per month. The opposite party Rama Shankar in his statement has admitted that he is employed in the State Bant Moghul Sarai and he daily goes from Varanasi to Moghul Sarai. In cress-examination Rama Shankar has statnd that his basic pay in the State Bank of India is Rs. 84/- per month. He pleaded ignorance as to what actual am Hint he gets over and above his pay by way of dearness allowance. It is difficult to accept the statement of Rama Shankar that he does not know the actual amount which he draws as his remuneration from the Bank. There is no material on record to doubt the assertion of Smt. Savitri Devi that the income of her husband Rama Shankar is Rs. 200/- per month. 17. It is difficult to accept the statement of Rama Shankar that he does not know the actual amount which he draws as his remuneration from the Bank. There is no material on record to doubt the assertion of Smt. Savitri Devi that the income of her husband Rama Shankar is Rs. 200/- per month. 17. In the circumstances of the case and keeping in view the status of Rama Shankar, I direct that a sum of Rs. 25/-per month to Smt. Savitri Devi and Rs. 50/- per month to the son, that is, a total amount of Rs. 75/- per month shall be paid by Rama ihankar to Smt. Savitri Devi as maintenance allowance from the date of bar application. 18. The revision application is allowed.