Order.- The revision petitioner is the wife of the respondent. She filed M.C. No. 54 of 1973 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Alwaye, claiming maintenance against the respondent. It was averred in the petition that the petitioner was living with the respondent till Kami 1148 (October, 1972). On the 26th of Kanni, 1148 she went to her parents house just for a casual visit. The respondent thereafter refused to take her back. He did not care to maintain her. There were attempts from his side to get a divorce from the petitioner. Arrangements have been made for his marriage with a girl at Thrikkakara. The claim in the petition was for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75. 2. The respondent in his objections stated that the petitioner left his house without bis consent and denied that there was any refusal on his pert to take back the petitioner. There used to be disputes over some ornaments of the petitioner which her father took away. The respondent denied that there was any idea on his part to contract a second marriage. According to the respondent, attempts made by him and mediators to take the petitioner to his house have failed. He is prepared to maintain her; but the petitioner has refused to live with him without sufficient reasons. 3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrates Alwaye, did not accept the contentions of the respondent and allowed maintenance to the petitioner at a monthly rate of Rs. 50. The respondent filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 6 of 1975 before the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the case of the respondent about his offer to maintain the petitioner. The Court observed that the burden of proving that there Was sufficient reason for her refusal to live with the husband was on the petitioner and as she has not discharged that burden, she was not entitled to maintenance. The revision petition was accordingly allowed. The petitioner challenges the above order in this Court. The respondent did not put in appearance. 4. The arguments of the learned Counsel tor the petitioner centred round the question of burden of proof. The revision petition was accordingly allowed. The petitioner challenges the above order in this Court. The respondent did not put in appearance. 4. The arguments of the learned Counsel tor the petitioner centred round the question of burden of proof. The contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that once it is proved that there was a refusal or neglect on the part of the husband to maintain a wife who is unable to maintain herself, it is upto the husband to prove that the wile was not willing to live with him and that there was no sufficient reason for such refusal. 5. Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure casts a responsibility on the husband to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself. But section 125(4) states that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under the section if she is living adultery, or if without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual cor sent. Evidently section 125(4) is an exception to the general liability to maintain, referred to in section 125(1). He who claims exemption from liability has to prove the existence of circumstances which entitle him to put forward such a claim. Viewed in the above light, it is for the respondent to prove that there has been an improper refusal on the part of the petitioner to live with him. 6. There are other reasons also for arriving at the above conclusion. Section 125 (4) mentions three contingencies when a wife may not be entitled to maintenance and all of them are placed on a par with each other. It will look ludicrous if the Court is to bold that a wife should prove that she is not living in adultery. If it is for the husband to prove that the wife is disentitled to maintenance because she is living in adultery, there is no reason why a different rule regarding burden of proof should be followed in a case where the husband wants to escape liability to maintain the wife on the ground that she refuses to live with him. 7. No decision of the Kerala High Court on the question of burden of proof has been brought to my notice. 7. No decision of the Kerala High Court on the question of burden of proof has been brought to my notice. But the Lahore High Court had occasion to consider the point in Ram Singh v. Mt. Ram Bai1, which arose when the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 was in force. After referring to section 488(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 that Court held: “It is not stated on whom lies the burden of proving whether the reasons for the wife refusing to live with her husband are sufficient or not. It seems to me, however, that on general principles where the Court has found prima facie case of neglect by the husband to maintain the wife, it an order is not to be passed on account of this sub-section, it is for the husband to show that the sub-section is applicable and that either the wife is guilty of adultery or that she is unreasonably refusing to live with him or that they are living separately by mutual consent.” 8. The question arose before the Gujarat High Court in Bai Ganga v. Harijan Ghiman Shanker and another2. The Court held that it is for the husband to prove that without any sufficient reason, the wife refused to live with him or that the wife was living separately by mutual consent. 9. The Mysore High Court had occasion to consider the question of burden of proof under section 488(4), Criminal Procedure Code, Rahmath v. Zainabi1. It was held that going by the general principles of law and especially where section 488(4), Criminal Procedure Code, is viewed as an exception, the burden of establishing it lies on the husband. 10. In the instant case, it is the admitted fact that the petitioner has been residing with her parents. There is no case for the respondent that he has been maintaining her. It is also common case that disputes regarding some ornaments of the petitioner have given rise to strained relationship between the respondent and the father of the petitioner. The petitioner would also say that the respondent was not favourably inclined towards her as she had not given birth to any child after 9 years of marriage. In fact, her case is that the parents of the respondent sent out mediators for the purpose of effecting a divorce, so that he could marry another girl. The petitioner would also say that the respondent was not favourably inclined towards her as she had not given birth to any child after 9 years of marriage. In fact, her case is that the parents of the respondent sent out mediators for the purpose of effecting a divorce, so that he could marry another girl. She would also say that an agreement of marriage has already been entered into by the respondent with one Leela living at Thrikkakata. The respondent denied that there Was such a move. According to him, he had gone to the petitioner’s house to take her back but be was manhandled there. To prove this case, be has examined CPW.4. (P.W.4 would say that he had seen the respondent being pushed by the neck by the father of the petitioner fifteen months prior to bis examination, in December, 1974; but this is inconsistent with the Version put forward by the respondent himself in bis objection and also as CPW. 1. In bis objections, he mentioned that he was assaulted by the petitioner’s people in February, 1973. As CPW. 1, he would say that he Went to the petitioner’s house in the second month of 1148(September-October, 1972). On his own admission, CPW. 4 is a casual witness. There is thus no proper evidence to show that the respondent had been to the house of the petitioner to persuade her to go and live with him. 11. Next there is the plea of mediation. the respondent examined CPWs. 2 and 3 Who claim themselves to be the mediators. Both these witnesses would say that they had been to the house of the petitioner and told her father about the respondent’s request to send his wife to him. The father, agreed to send the petitioner the following day but she was not sent. The above evidence is inconsistent with the version put forward by the respondent in his objections. The respondent’s case in the objections filed by him is that the father of the petitioner refused to accede to the request of the mediators to send bet to the respondent, 12. The learned Magistrate has also referred to the fact that though four persons have been mentioned in the objections as mediators, none of their has been examined. The names of CPWs. 2 and 3 who have been examined as mediators are not mentioned in the objections. The learned Magistrate has also referred to the fact that though four persons have been mentioned in the objections as mediators, none of their has been examined. The names of CPWs. 2 and 3 who have been examined as mediators are not mentioned in the objections. This circumstance has some bearing on the veracity of the case of mediation. 13. The respondent has thus not proved that there was an offer by him to take the petitioner back or that there was a refusal on the part of the petitioner to go and live with the respondent. There was therefore, no sufficient reason to differ from the conclusions arrived at by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. the order of the Sessions Judge will stand set aside and that of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate will be restored.