Judgment FAROOQ HASAN. J. ( 1 ) AN application under section 482, Cr. P. C. against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk dated 12. 12. 1984 has been filed by the applicant, which has been admitted. After filing the said application, an application under 5. 482, Cr. P. C. has also been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that while exercising inherent powers the petitioner and her minor son should be granted maintenance to the tune of 300/- p. m. till the disposal of the main application. ( 2 ) NOTICE of the said application was given to the non-petitioner, who filed a reply wherein the facts alleged by the petitioner have been denied and it has been stated that no such relief can be granted to the petitioner, because the original application under section 125. Cr. P. C. , which was filed in the Court of C. J. M. Tonk was dismissed on the ground that the non-petitioner was willing to keep the petitioner with him and the petitioner always refused to live with the non-petitioner. ( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the petitioner is a married wife of the non-petitioner. She is living separately and has no means of livelihood. At present she is earning her livelihood by manufacturing Binst, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case Smt. Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat1. ( 5 ) I have considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsels and perused the application as well as the order passed by the court below, which are in the original application No. 80/85 and that file has been tagged with the present application. ( 6 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the present applicant Mst. Shahida presented an application in the Court of C. J. M. , Tonk with following averments. ( 7 ) THAT she was married with the non-petitioner Chhuttan Khan on 16. 6. 77. Thereafter she went to Jaipur along with the non-petitioner and found that he was already having a wife Smt. Shahida and the non-petitioner was under her influence. Shahida presented an application in the Court of C. J. M. , Tonk with following averments. ( 7 ) THAT she was married with the non-petitioner Chhuttan Khan on 16. 6. 77. Thereafter she went to Jaipur along with the non-petitioner and found that he was already having a wife Smt. Shahida and the non-petitioner was under her influence. In that application it was alleged that the petitioner was living at Tonk with her parents and the non- petitioner had wilfully neglected her without any sufficient cause, although he had the means to maintain her and her child. It was alleged in that application that she was mentally tortured not only by the non-petitioner but by her first wife also. ( 8 ) THE non-petitioner in reply denied the allegations and in additional pleas it has been stated that the petitioner is an ill-tempered lady and used to quarrel with his first wife. At the time of marriage the petitioner knew it well that the non-petitioner was contracting a second marriage. It was further alleged in the reply that the petitioner was under the influence of her parents and that she herself deserted the non-petitioner and is living without the consent of the petitioner. Therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. ( 9 ) AFTER recording the evidence of both the parties, the learned C. J. M. Tonk dismissed the application holding that the petitioner is living with her parent without the, consent of the non- petitioner and she has refused to live with the non-petitioner, although the non petitioner proposed to keep her. ( 10 ) A revision was filed against this order, which was also dismissed. The judgment of both the courts below are based on the evidence recorded by the trial court. Both the courts below observed as under; It was incumbent on the petitioner to have proved that she has been deserted by the husband. Now, it is to be proved that the non-petitioner is wilfully neglecting her. Therefore, the wilful neglect on the part of the husband has not been proved. Unless this finding is held erroneous or perverse, no other conclusion can be drawn in favour of the petitioner. Under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code only that wife can claim maintenance who is living separately having sufficient cause, say, who has been neglected by the husband. Therefore, the wilful neglect on the part of the husband has not been proved. Unless this finding is held erroneous or perverse, no other conclusion can be drawn in favour of the petitioner. Under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code only that wife can claim maintenance who is living separately having sufficient cause, say, who has been neglected by the husband. Therefore, in the present circumstances, the petitioner against whom there is a concurrent finding cannot claim or cannot be given interim maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of explanation of subsection (3) to section 125, Criminal Procedure Code the petitioner is entitled to get interim maintenance. According to this explanation, where a second wife can get the benefit of this explanation or not is a question, application of which can definitely be given effect on the decision of the original application. Whether benefit of this explanation relates to the first wife or second wife, is a question on which it will be too early to express any opinion. The case referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not help the petitioner. In that case it was held that the petitioner seeking interim relief has also asked for the child, for whom non-petitioner had made a proposal that the boy should be kept with him and he was [ready to maintain him. But this proposal was also rejected by the petitioner, and she is not ready to hand over the child to the non-petitioner. Because of this circumstance, the non-petitioner cannot be directed to pay interim maintenance for the child also. Moreover, the petitioner has to submit an affidavit in support of her version, but no such affidavit has been filed along with this application. ( 11 ) IN the light of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any force in this application and as such it is hereby dismissed.