JUDGMENT - P.V. NIRGUDKAR, J.:---This criminal revision application by the wife is directed against the husband for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Vasundharabai hereinafter called the applicant is the wife and Vasantrao hereinafter called the non-applicant is the husband. Applicant filed an application for maintenance against the non-applicant under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. 2. Pausing here it may be pointed out that Vasundharabai filed an application for a minor son Santosh and to whom maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- has been granted and that order is still in force and that order is not in dispute. 3. Non-applicant Vasantrao filed Criminal Revision No. 116/85 as he has been aggrieved by the order of granting maintenance to applicant Vasundharabai. His revision has been allowed and maintenance order against Vasundharabai has been set aside. 4. Dis-satisfied and disappointed Vasundharabai the original applicant has come to this Court with the hope to get maintenance. This case is tragic as it has peculiar facts and rather shocking effect. The applicant Vasundharabai is 45 years old and non applicant Vasantrao is 48 years old. Their marriage took place in May 1961 and admittedly it is still subsisting. 5. Nirmala came in the life of Vasantrao in the year 1964 and they had illicit intimacy since then. Children were born to them and Nirmala was treated as wife. Not only this but Vasundharabai and Nirmala resided together and there is nothing on record to show that they had any quarrel between them. So smooth was their life. So peaceful was their relations. In 1977 Vasundharabai went to her parents house for delivery as she was then pregnant. In 1981 Nirmala expired and in 1984 this application for maintenance came to be filed mainly on the ground that the non applicant has taken a second wife. 6. The non-applicant by his rejoinder Exh. 10 resisted the application contending that it was with consent with the applicant he took Nirmala as his wife. But that contention found little favour with the learned Magistrate who granted maintenance as stated above at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. 7. 6. The non-applicant by his rejoinder Exh. 10 resisted the application contending that it was with consent with the applicant he took Nirmala as his wife. But that contention found little favour with the learned Magistrate who granted maintenance as stated above at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. 7. However, in the revision the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that as the second wife was not alive at the time when the maintenance application was filed the ground of second marriage was not open to the applicant and so he dismissed her application for maintenance. 8. The third question which arise for consideration is whether the applicant is entitled to claim maintenance. This question is not free from difficulty as it is not easy to answer. Explanation to sub-section (3) of section 125 lays down that if a husband has contracted a 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. Where the husband has contracted a marriage with another woman then the wife has sufficient ground to refuse to reside with the husband when the husband makes the offer to take the wife. This explanation one has to remember is second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Here the facts of the case are unique. It is not in dispute that the non-applicant has taken a second wife or has kept a mistress Nirmala, even though he has the first wife the applicant living. However, the present application has been filed after the death of Nirmala. Nirmala, died 1981 and the present application has been filed in 1984. It is his fact that is to be underlined and it is to be emphasized. To my mind it makes all the difference. The application is not made during the life time of the second wife or the mistress but when there is no second wife or the mistress and so there is no good ground for the applicant to refuse to go to the non-applicant to reside with him. So the reasoning of the learned Magistrate on this aspect is not correct and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, seems to have taken the correct view. 10. So the reasoning of the learned Magistrate on this aspect is not correct and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, seems to have taken the correct view. 10. As has been already observed the applicant has gone to her parents when she was pregnant, there is nothing to show that she was ill-treated by the non-applicant. It is conceivable that when she was pregnant there was no love between husband and wife. However, it is not in dispute that the applicant did not return thereafter, and in 1984 she filed the present application. It was obligatory on the part of the wife to come to reside with the non-applicant and to resume the martial ties, when her children are adults and residing with her husband. It seems to be the case of wife deserting the husband. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has rightly refused to award any maintenance to her. 11. The revision has a very limited scope and Court is very reluctant to appreciate the facts afresh. The revision therefore, stands dismissed. I have dealt only with the points of law and I have dealt with the facts only to appreciate the points of law. In the result, the revision is dismissed. But in view of peculiar facts of the case there will be no order as to costs. Revision dismissed. -----