P. D. MULYE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, who is the husband of the respondent, has filed this revision, which arises out of proceedings for maintenance instituted by the respondent wife, under Section 125 Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this revision petition, say be stated, in brief, thus: the petitioner is the husband of the respondent, who lived as husband and wife for sometime. But thereafter because of Subhash Chandra Vs. Vimla cruelty the wife started living separately from her husband. The respondent, therefore, filed a petition for maintenance in 1976 but because of a compromise the same was dismissed on 29-10- 1977. Thereafter the respondent filed the present petition in 1978 on the ground that she was unable to maintain herself, her husband having failed and neglected to maintain her. That application was dismissed by the same was allowed by the lower revisional Court which awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month. Hence this revision. ( 3 ) THE learned lower revisional Court concerned with the finding of the learned trial Court that the respondent has failed to prove a case of physical cruelty. But the learned lower revisional Court granted maintenance mainly on the ground that the petitioner in his written Statement, while opposing the claim of the respondent had alleged that she was living in adultery though he did not pursue this point further in his evidence. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant therefore, relying upon the decision reported in Paras Ram v. Kamlesh and Sadan Singh v. Smt. Resham2 submitted that a mere averment in the written Statement about adultery without any further proof regarding the same would not constituted any act of cruelty. Both these cases arose out of proceedings for divorce. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that he having not led any evidence regarding adultery against his wife, there was no question of mental cruelty has been found by the learned lower revisional Court. Both these cases arose out of proceedings for divorce. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that he having not led any evidence regarding adultery against his wife, there was no question of mental cruelty has been found by the learned lower revisional Court. ( 5 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the wife relying on the decisions reported in Kandaswami Moopan v. Angammal3 and Vijavkamal v. Ramchandra4 submitted that in order to claim maintenance the averment of adultery was a sufficient ground and for the wife to live separately as obviously that was a mental cruelty practiced upon the wife even though the husband may not have pressed that point further. He, therefore, submitted, that allegation of adultery being a serious charge the petitioner now cannot be allowed to escape from his liability to pay maintenance by taking resort to the fact that the had restricted that averment only to the written Statement. ( 6 ) THUS, after hearing the learned Counsel and considering the facts and circumstances of the case I am of opinion that when the petitioner has made a false allegation of adultery in the written Statement, this itself constitutes mental cruelty to the wife even though physical cruelty as such has not been found proved. Therefore, I am of opinion that the view taken by the learned revisional Court appears to be proper and no further interference therewith is called for in absence of any legal infirmity or perversity. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY I do not find any valid ground to entertain this revision petition. The quantum of compensation also being quite reasonable no further interference therewith is called for as the petitioner, as a husband, is bound to maintain his wife. In the result this petition fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .