JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J. —This judgment will dispose of both the Criminal Revision Petitions. In Criminal Revision Petition No. 75 of 1988, Banti Devi-petitioner wife—has prayed for enhancement of maintenance allowance to Rs. 500 per month from Rs. 150 per month awarded to her vide judgment dated 16th January, 1988 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sunder Nagar. In the other Criminal Revision Petition No. 104 of 1990, Moti Ram-petitioner husband—has challenged the same judgment and prayed for dismissal of the petition under section 125 Cr P, C filed by Banti Devi for maintenance. 2. The brief facts are that on 28th September, 1985 Banti Devi had filed a petition under section 125 Cr. P. C. for maintenance of Rs. 500 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sunder Nagar, alleging that she was married to Moti Ram ten years ago according to Hindu rites. It is further averred that from May, 1978, Moti Ram started maltreating and beating her without any reason and ultimately turned her out of the matrimonial home in the year 1980. According to her, since then she has been residing with her parents. She had filed petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was allowed and decree of restitution of conjugal rights was passed in her favour by the District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul and Spiti Districts at Mandi, on 10th May, 1983. Her allegations were that thereafter on 20-4-1984, Moti Ram had contracted second marriage with one Champa Devi, Having come to know this fact, the petitioner filed petition under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation on the ground of second marriage by Moti Ram which was also allowed by the Additional District Judge, Mandi, vide decree dated 12th October, 1984. Both the decrees, for restitution of conjugal rights as well for judicial separation, were ex parte as Moti Ram failed to appear despite service. Banti Devi had further alleged that she had no source of livelihood whereas Moti Ram is a rich man and was earning Rs. 2,000 per month. In his reply, Moti Ram had admitted that Banti Devi was his legally wedded wife and was residing with her parents from 1980 at her own sweet will. He had denied all other allegations and had expressed his willingness to keep Banti Devi with him and maintain her. 3. 2,000 per month. In his reply, Moti Ram had admitted that Banti Devi was his legally wedded wife and was residing with her parents from 1980 at her own sweet will. He had denied all other allegations and had expressed his willingness to keep Banti Devi with him and maintain her. 3. On the evidence produced by the parties, the trial Court held Banti Devi entitled to maintenance on the ground that Moti Ram had neglected her as he did not make any effort to bring Banti Devi back to the matrimonial home after 1980 or give her any maintenance. 4. Feeling aggrieved, Moti Ram had filed Revision Petition in the Court of Sessions Judge, Mandi, which was ordered to be brought to this Court on the application made in Criminal Revision Petition No. 75 of 1988 and was registered as Criminal Revision Petition No. 104 of 1990. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record The trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence to come to the conclusion that Moti Ram did not care for Banti Devi since 1980 which amounts to neglect on his part. The allegation of Moti Ram that Banti Devi had left her matrimonial home of her own accord is belied not only by the oral evidence but by her conduct to file a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights on 9th November, 1982 alleging that despite her best efforts Moti Ram did not permit her to live with him. The District Judge, Maodi, Kullu and Lahaul and Spiti Districts at Mandi had allowed the petition vide his decree and judgment dated 10th May, 1983, Ex. P-l and Ex. P-2 and his findings in para 3 are :— "......In view of the above ex parte evidence of the petitioner, she has been able to prove that the respondent No. 1 has deserted the petitioner and neglected to maintain her without any reasonable cause,........" 6. Though the above findings are ex parte, yet, these are final between the parties as Moti Ram never challenged them, Similarly, in the decree and judgment dated 12th October, 1984 Ex. Though the above findings are ex parte, yet, these are final between the parties as Moti Ram never challenged them, Similarly, in the decree and judgment dated 12th October, 1984 Ex. P-3 and Ex P-4 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mandi Division Mandi, granting judicial separation to Banti Devi in her petition under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the following findings were given :— "......She has also deposed that the respondent No. 1 remarried himself with respondent No. 2 on 20-4-1984. Her statement is duly supported by PW 2 Chaman Lal and PW 3 Jiwan Singh, who has also proved Ex. PW 3/1. Thus from the ex parte evidence of the petitioner, it is fully proved that the respondent No, 1 has deserted and neglected the petitioner and treated her with such cruelty, as to cause reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be harmful and injurious for her to live with the respondent No. 1 and as such she is entitled to the relief claimed." (In the said petition, respondent No. 1 was Moti Ram and respondent No. 2 was Champa Devi). 7. These findings have also become final between the parties as Moti Ram never challenged them though he has admitted in his cross-examination that he had come to know about these judgments later on, Simple denial by Moti Ram that he has not married Champa Devi and the effort to show that Champa Devi was, in fact, married to one of his brothers, who is also residing in Bombay, cannot be believed in view of the statement of Banti Devi and her witnesses Durga (PW 2) and Gulaba (PW 3). His statement in cross-examination that he was not called in the marriage of his brother with Champa Devi and his showing ignorance to other details about Champa Devi, especially whether she had given birth to a boy or a girl baby, shows that he was telling lies. Except his statement, ho has not produced any evidence on record to counter the overwhelming evidence adduced by Banti Devi that he had married second time with Champa Devi. 8. It is settled by now that second marriage or keeping a mistress by the husband entitles his wife to live separately. Further, solemnizing second marriage when the first wife is living itself proves the neglect by the husband to maintain the first wife. 8. It is settled by now that second marriage or keeping a mistress by the husband entitles his wife to live separately. Further, solemnizing second marriage when the first wife is living itself proves the neglect by the husband to maintain the first wife. (Please see 2 Deochand v. State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 1974 SC 1488 and Pellakuru Saymalamma @ Syamalamba v. Pellakuru Sambaiah and another, (1988) 2 Crimes, 768). Therefore, I hold that Moti Ram has been neglecting to maintain Banti Devi and she is entitled to maintenance allowance from him. In the result, Criminal Revision Petition No. 104 of 1990 filed by Moti Ram is rejected. 9. The trial Court has rightly held that from the evidence on record it is proved that Smt Banti Devi was unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, Moti Ram is admittedly working as a Taxi driver at Bombay. Though he has stated that his monthly income was about Rs 300 in October, 1987 when he appeared as his own witness before the trial Court, yet, it has rightly been disbelieved. It can safely be presumed that a driver at Bombay was earning not less than Rs. 1,200 per month in the year 1988 when the impugned judgment was passed and his earning is not less than Rs. 1,500 per month as of today. Moti Ram has not proved on record that he has other liabilities, such as to maintain old parents and dependant brothers and sisters. In these circumstances, the wife is normally entitled to one-third of the total income of the husband as maintenance. But in the peculiar circumstances of this case, it will be just and fair if Banti Devi is awarded an amount of Rs. 300 per month as maintenance from the date of impugned order, that is, 16th January, 1988. 10. In the result, Criminal Revision Petition No. 75 of 1988 filed by Banti Devi is partly allowed. Revision petition partly allowed.