JUDGMENT Parmeshwar Dayal, J. - Mohammad Siddiq filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. against the judgment and order dated April 24, 1981, passed by Sri R.N. Sinha, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda, dismissing the revision of the petitioner and upholding the order dated August 5, 1980 of the Munsif-Magistrate, Gonda. 2. The petitioner Mohammad Siddiq is the husband of the opposite party Smt. Phunnan. The petitioner had already one wife when he entered into marriage with the opposite party Smt. Phunnan and executed a 'Guzara-nama' Ex. Ka-2 at that the time of marriage agreeing to pay Rs. 40/- per month to the opposite party Smt. Phunnan. The petitioner had entered into second marriage because he had no issue from the first wife. 3. Smt. Phunnan moved an application on March 31, 1979 under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for maintenance allowance on the ground that she was left at her parents' house by her husband about 1 years ago after taking all her ornaments etc. and that her husband practised cruelty upon her. The petitioner Mohammad Siddiq filed written statement on April 17, 1979 alleging that Smt. Phunnan herself refused to live with him without any valid reason and that his income was Rs. 2/- or Rs. 3/- per day. 4. Smt. Phunnan examined herself and three witnesses, namely Ramzan, Barely and Fazal Ali. The petitioner Mohammad Siddiq examined himself and two witnesses, Ishaq and Mohammad Amin. The learned trial court believed the case of Smt. Phunnan and fixed the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. 5. Mohammad Siddiq filed a Criminal Revision No. 103/80 which was dismissed on April 24, 1981. 6. The petitioner claimed that any finding was not given by the lower Court on the point that he neglected or refused to maintain his wife Smt. Phunnan when there was an offer by him to maintain herself as his wife in case she lived with him; the second proviso of Section 125(3), Cr. P.C could be attracted only when he would have contracted another marriage; and that any amount of maintenance should not have been fixed against (sic) the Ex. Ka-2 while the amount of Rs. 150/- per month, as fixed by the lower Court, is excessive. 7. But I find that there has been a finding on the point that the petitioner neglected his wife and refused to maintain her. Ka-2 while the amount of Rs. 150/- per month, as fixed by the lower Court, is excessive. 7. But I find that there has been a finding on the point that the petitioner neglected his wife and refused to maintain her. Even a referent was made to a civil suit which was filed for restitution of conjugal rights by the petitioner and that suit was dismissed. The dismissal of that suit itself a sufficient ground for holding that the opposite party was being treated with cruelty and she had a reasonable cause to live separate fro her husband. When the petitioner practised cruelty on his wife, she could validly refuse to live with him even though he might have offered to keep her as his wife and to maintain her. 8. There has been an evidence to the effect that the petitioner was having his bent of affection towards his first wife. The witness Ramzan stated that the petitioner turned Smt. Phunnan out of the house. It is not denied that the petitioner was living with his first wife. 9. The Explanation 2 to second proviso to Section 125(3), Cr. P.C. reads as follows: - "If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him." 10. It has been argued on the basis of the aforesaid Explanation that the opposite party Smt. Phunnan was not his first wife and his first wife was not his second wife and, therefore, this provision of law is not applicable. But the wordings of this Explanation referred to contracting of his the marriage with another woman or to keeping a mistress. 11. The petitioner has been living with his first wife and he has been practising cruelty upon his second wife. The provisions of Section 125, Cr. P.C. have been incorporated in Cr. P.C. for the benefit of the females. The petitioner's having good relations and affection with his first wife could result into a mental torture to Smt. Phunnan and she could have a valid ground for refusing to live with the petitioner. The petitioner himself appears to have apprehended this eventuality and this is why he executed the 'Guzara-nama' Ex. Ka-2 at the time of the marriage. The petitioner's having good relations and affection with his first wife could result into a mental torture to Smt. Phunnan and she could have a valid ground for refusing to live with the petitioner. The petitioner himself appears to have apprehended this eventuality and this is why he executed the 'Guzara-nama' Ex. Ka-2 at the time of the marriage. So, there has not been any illegality committed by the revisional Court in dealing with the aforesaid Explanation to the second proviso of Section 125(3), Cr. P.C. 12. Ex. Ka-2, 'Guzara-nama' was executed by the petitioner unilaterally, agreeing to pay Rs. 40/- per month to Smt. Phunnan. This Ex. Ka-2 was executed at the time of marriage and this amount was payable during that period also when Smt. Phunnan resided with the petitioner. The law provides the enhancement of maintenance allowance by the Courts. The petitioner owns a shop of bangles and his witness - Mohammad Amin admitted that goods of the value of about Rs. 15,000/- always in stock in his shop. This witness further admitted that the petitioner owned two Pukhta houses. The opposite party Smt. Phunnan is not in a position to maintain herself. Her father sells bangles. Therefore, the fixation of the amount of Rs. 150/- per month towards her maintenance allowance is not unreasonable. 13. For reasons discussed above, this petition has no force and the same is dismissed. They stay order is vacated.