JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. K.K. Mehrish, learned counsel for Abdul Gani, petitioner, and perused the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Kota, dated April 30, 1980, and the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kota, dated August 22, 1978. Upon perusal of the judgments I am of the view that this petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed summarily, because under sub-section (4) of Section 125, Cr.P.C. the wife alone shall be dis-entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under that section if she is living in adultery if, without any sufficient cause, she refuses to live with her husband or if both husband and wife are living separately by mutual consent. Sub-section (4) of Section. 125, Cr.P.C. cannot be interpreted to mean that the child also is not entitled to receive maintenance allowance from his or her father under section 125, Cr.P.C. if his or her mother refused to live with her husband without any sufficient reason or if both husband and wife are living separately by mutual consent or if the wife is living in adultery. Sub-section (1) of section 125, Cr.P.C. clearly provides that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his legitimate or illegitimate minor child (whether married or not) and who is unable to maintain himself, or herself as the case may be, a Magistrate of the First Class may upon proof of such neglect or refusal order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of such child. In the instant case Babu, aged 7 years and Baby alias Kanvirjahan, aged 10 years, are the son and daughter respectively of Abdul Gani and Smt. Nanni. Each of them has been awarded maintenance by the learned Magistrate at the rate of Rs. 50/-, per month since October 13, 1976, upon proof on the record that the petitioner having sufficient ameans neglected or refused to maintain them. These two children cannot be deprived of their right of maintenance merely on the ground that their mother, without any sufficient reason refuses to live with her husband Abdul Gani. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any authority in support of his contention that the two children are not entitled to receive an allowance from the petitioner because their mother refuses to live with her husband without any sufficient reason. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any authority in support of his contention that the two children are not entitled to receive an allowance from the petitioner because their mother refuses to live with her husband without any sufficient reason. 2. Consequently, the application under section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by Abdul Gani has no force and is hereby dismissed summarily.Application rejected. *******