JUDGMENT : M.B. Shah, J. The petitioner wife filed maintenance application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Cole before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Borsad for recovering maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from the opp. No. 1 husband. The case was numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 176/83. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Borsad by his judgment and order dated 11th May, 1984 rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove that she was driven out by the opponent No. 1 after heating her and that she was staying separately from her husband without any reasonable cause, against the said judgment and order the petitioner has filed the aforesaid revision application. 2. In this revision application the learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the learned Magistrate has wrongly relied upon the alleged writing Ex. 23 and held that the petitioner had foregone her right of maintenance. It was further on 24-9-84 submitted that the opp. No. 1 had remarried and, therefore as per the provisions of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code she was entitled to have separate residence and maintenance. 3. In this case it is an admitted fact that opponent No. 1 has remarried. Even in the affidavit-in-rely filed before this Court the opponent No. 1 has stated that his family consists of six children his present wife and himself. As the opponent No. 1 has remarried, under Section 125(3) explanation it would be a just ground for the first wife's refusal to live with the husband and the first wife would be entitled to separate residence and maintenance. 4. It was contended by the learned advocate for the opponent No. 1 that the wife of her own accord had left the husband's residence and was residing separately of her own. He relied upon a writing alleged to have been written by wife wherein it is stated that on 9-5-52 her father came at her husband's house and some quarrel took place on 12-5-52 her mother also came there, some quarrel took place and she took her to her parents' house. It is further mentioned in the said writing that if she stays with her husband, then he would be harassed; she won't claim any right over the property of her husband, she may be permitted to stay at her parents' house. It is further mentioned in the said writing that if she stays with her husband, then he would be harassed; she won't claim any right over the property of her husband, she may be permitted to stay at her parents' house. After living some place there is alleged signature of the petitioner on Revenue stamp of one anna. On the other end of the said document there is also thumb impression alleged to be that of the petitioner. A bare look at this document and the tenor thereof clearly show that this document is written under some duress or coercion. No date is mentioned when the said document was written, but from the writing it seems that it might have been written on 12-5-52. After 12-5-52 a notice has been sent by the husband on 13-6-55. In the said notice it is nowhere mentioned that the petitioner has executed the document Ex. 23. In the said notice it has been stated that after his marriage the wife started misbehaving and under the advice of her parents she was staying at her parent's house. On 21-11-54 her uncle Fatesinh Chatrasinh Shinde took her at her parents' house without the consult of respondent No. 1. By the said notice she was warned to come back for having restitution of conjugal rights otherwise legal action should be taken against her. From this notice Ex. 30 one thing is apparent that till 21-11-54 the petitioner was residing with the opponent No. 1. It is the say of the opponent No. 1 in his deposition in cross-examination that the said writing was executed in November 1954. Even if the said date is taken to be correct, yet from the notice it is clear that he had not referred to the said writ in Ex. 23 at all. The notice was given through advocate Mr. Dayamakumar. An advocate would not miss to write such an important fact. In the notice Ex. 30 it is mentioned that the wife's uncle came at his house and he took her at her parents' house. That would mean that when the said document was executed, the uncle of the petitioner would be present. The said document nowhere mentions that it was written in the presence of somebody else. In the notice Ex. 30 it is mentioned that the wife's uncle came at his house and he took her at her parents' house. That would mean that when the said document was executed, the uncle of the petitioner would be present. The said document nowhere mentions that it was written in the presence of somebody else. There is nothing on record 3 to show that after the said notice opponent No. 1 initiated any proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights. In any case no reliance can be placed upon the said writing Ex. 23 for rejecting the wife's claim for maintenance as no amount is paid to the wife for her maintenance. Further, one fails to comprehended the reason why the wife would execute the alleged writing because at that time no amount was paid to her. In my view; therefore, no reliance can be placed upon this document for discarding the claim of the petitioner. 5. It is an admitted fact that since 1954 the petitioner and opponent No. 1 are staying separately. No efforts were made by the opponent No 1 had remarried. 6. The only question which would survive is what amount should be awarded to the petitioner for maintenance opponent No. 1 has stated that he was serving as a Senior Clerk in the Bank of Baroda. In the deposition he has stated that his salary was Rs. 1,369/- but in cross-examination he was required to admit that in February, 1984 his salary was Rs. 1,675/-. Considering the fact that opp. No. 1 is required to maintain family of 6 persons, therefore, it would be just and reasonable to pass an award for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month in favour of the petitioner. It is held that the petitioner is entitled to have maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- p. m. from opponent No. 1 from the date of the application i. e. from 9-8-1983. 7. In the result, the revision application is allowed and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Borsad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 176/83 is quashed and set aside. The opponent No. 1 is directed to pay to the petitioner maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month from the date of the application i. e. from 9-8-1983. In the result, the revision application is allowed and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Borsad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 176/83 is quashed and set aside. The opponent No. 1 is directed to pay to the petitioner maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month from the date of the application i. e. from 9-8-1983. The opponent No. 1 shall pay up the arrears to the petitioner within three months from today. The opponent No. I shall also pay to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of this proceeding. Rule made absolute. Revision allowed.