Short Note : 1. It was not disputed that on an application by the wife, maintenance of Rs. 40 per month was granted to the wife on 21-9-1968 under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter the wife moved for realisation of the maintenance amount under section 488 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was rejected by the trial Court. Held : This Court has perused the evidence recorded in the case. The evidence of the husband Rajaram itself established that he has neglected or refused to maintain his wife after he had driven her out. On this date the second wife was living with the husband and thus the wife was entitled to live separately and on proof of refusal or neglect to maintain that she was entitled to maintenance. Once an order of maintenance has been passed, it can be cancelled under section 488 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The husband has not made any application for cancellation of the order under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground mentioned in the application He has also not claimed modification of the order under section 489 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court is of the view that the husband having failed to get the order of maintenance cancelled under S. 488 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the wife is entitled to execute the maintenance order when there is proof of refusal or neglect to maintain and also because the husband's allegation of unchastity against the wife is false. State of M.P. v. Mst. Thagiyabai, 1965 MPLJ SN 122; State v. Anwarbi and others, AIR 1953 Nag. 133; Kashinath panda v. Padmavati Devi, AIR 1956 Orissa 199; Mukund Singh v. Mst. Kartar Gaur; AIR 1958 Punjab 422, Laxman Gajju v. Sitabai Laxman and another, AIR 1958 Bombay 14; Mst. Ahilya Bai v. Ramhit, Cr. Revn. 204 of 1968 referred to.