Judgment Siba Prasad Rajkhowa, J. 1. THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 30th May, 1990 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah in Misc. Case No. 152 of 1989 Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By this impugned order the learned Magistrate has allowed the prayer for maintenance in part. He has granted allowance at the rate of 300/- per month from the date of application to the petitioner as maintenance for her minor son but has refused maintenance to the petitioner herself. 2. PETITIONER Smt. Chitralekha Banerjee filed the application Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. on 11.8.89 claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month for herself and at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month for her minor child from her husband Rana Banerjee who was arrayed as the opposite party on the grounds of physical torture, mental cruelty and refusal by the opposite party to maintain her and the child. The claim was resisted by the opposite party. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, upon consideration of the evidence on record, has held that the petitioner has failed to show that she has been neglected or refused to be maintained by her husband and that she was staying at her father's place not because of her desertion by her husband but because of her own will which might be at the evil advice of others. It was she who refused to live with her husband without any sufficient reason. Therefore, she was not entitled to any maintenance for herself. But that the father/opposite party had the responsibility to maintain the son whether he resided with him or not, Accordingly he refused maintenance to the petitioner and granted the same to the minor son as adverted to above. Being aggrieved the petitioner has filed this revisional application claiming maintenance for herself also. 3. DURING hearing of this revisional application the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there were serious allegations of imnorality and unethical conduct on the part of the husband/opposite party brought on record in an affidavit filed by the petitioner and submitted that had the learned Magistrate taken due consideration of these allegations he would have granted maintenance to the petitioner also. This required calling for the lower Court records. This required calling for the lower Court records. After receipt of the records, the application was again listed for hearing on 25.4.91 and was heard. " 4. FROM the records I find that the parties to this proceeding got married on 21.2.87 and went to Puri for honeymoon on 15.3.87 and checked in Sonali Hotel and returned to Calcutta on or about 22.3.87. Then both of them stayed at the house of the petitioner's father at Howrah and the petitioner stayed there till the end of July 1987 for her B.A. (Hons) examination. Thereafter the petitioner returned to the husband's residence at Harsha Street Calcutta in the 1st week of August 1987. On 28.2.88 a minor incident of throwing a glass of milk took place and on the following day at about 10 a.m. the petitioner went away from her husband's residence to her paternal residence. By this time the petitioner was in her advanced stage of pregnancy. Her case is she *as forcibly driven out of her husband's house. Husband's case is she herself left the place on her own accord without any just cause. Subsequently she gave birth to a male child on 31,5.88 at Federation Nurshing Home near Raja Bazar. As such, the husband contends, the question of refusal to maintain his wife and baby does not arise. Before discussing the question of refusal to maintain, I shall try to find whether the petitioner has any just cause to stay separately from her husband. The petitioner has alleged in her evidence recorded on 19.3.90 that her husband behaved most indecently with her at Puri. The incident that took place at Puri was told by her to her parents. She has also alleged that her husband had illicit connection with the women of his magic circle and came back home at late hours of the night after magic shows and her husband used to call her 'Kept'. The first allegation regarding the incident at Puri was not mentioned in the application for maintenance but it was mentioned in the petitioner's affidavit filed on 4.12.89 in support other application for ad-interim maintenance. The other two allegations were broached in the main petition itself. That she narrated the incident of Puri and also other allegations to her father finds full corroborations in the evidence of Sri Jawaharlal Chakraborty (P.W. 2) who is the father of the petitioner. The other two allegations were broached in the main petition itself. That she narrated the incident of Puri and also other allegations to her father finds full corroborations in the evidence of Sri Jawaharlal Chakraborty (P.W. 2) who is the father of the petitioner. The allegation brought by the petitioner in her evidence remained uncontroverted in her cross-examination. The opposite party by examining himself as O.P.W. 1 has stated that he was the Secretary of the Calcutta Branch of Magic Association, viz. International Brotherhood of Magicians' Associations which has no female participant and has tried thus to refute the allegation that he had affairs with the women of the magic circle. As regards the Puri incident he has simply stated that he did not drink alcohol and it is not true that he ever misbehaved the petitioner being drunk. In the affidavit the petitioner has brought an allegation against the husband which she terms as an act of immorality, quite strange in any standard family. It is that her husband coerced her to appear in the nude and to pose for photograph and the husband told her that it would enrich the store of his photographic album of nude women of which scores he had and in fact made an exhibition of some of them to her strange eyes. The opposite party filed his objection on 17.1.90 to the affidavit of the petitioner filed on 4.12.89. While dealing with that incident of taking photograph in her nude, the opposite party has stated inter alia in paragraph 8 of his objection that the petitioner had intentionaly kept the alleged immoral act in vagueness and the opposite party presumed that by referring to the alleged immoral act, the petitioner had suggested that taking of her nude photograph by the opposite party constituted an immoral act and the opposite party denied such a suggestion. This means that he has not denied photographing her in the nude but that according to him this very fact is not an immoral act. Thus I find two allegations brought by the petitioner against the respondent which remain unchallenged; (1) that the respondent used to call the petitioner as 'Kept' and (2) that the petitioner had been photographed in her nude at Puri. Thus I find two allegations brought by the petitioner against the respondent which remain unchallenged; (1) that the respondent used to call the petitioner as 'Kept' and (2) that the petitioner had been photographed in her nude at Puri. Now the question before me, is, whether calling a legally married wife as 'Kept' by her husband and whether taking of photograph of the wife in the nude by the husband question by putting pressure on her amounted to mental cruelty giving rise to a just cause entitling the wife to live separately from her husband Ideal with second part of the question first. In my opinion taking a snap in the nude by itself may not constitute an immoral act. Surrounding circumstances and the intention of the photographer must be taken together to come to a correct finding. Here the photographer is the husband and the photographed is his wife. I searched the records in vain to locate the place where the snap was taken. It may be the hotel where the newly married couple stayed or it may be the sea beach which provided an idyllic background. Even if the second possibility is presumed there is no evidence that the photograph was taken in full view of other people who might be present at the sea beach at that particular time and place. There is no evidence that the husband wanted to keep these photographs at conspicuous places in his residence for public view. There is no evidence that the husband wanted to make clandestine business by selling nude picture. It is a matter between the husband and the wife and there is no evidence that the husband bad done this with some evil design or that he is a man of perverse taste. This reminds me of a world famous painting under the title "The Birth of Venus" drawn by Bottichelli, the famous 15th century Italian Painter. The Venus wag born and was rising from the sea with all her naked grandeur. The background was probably the mediterranean sea. I do not know whether in the instant case before me the husband was imbued with the spirit of Bottichelli and whether he wanted to immortalise his wife in her naked beauty. The Venus wag born and was rising from the sea with all her naked grandeur. The background was probably the mediterranean sea. I do not know whether in the instant case before me the husband was imbued with the spirit of Bottichelli and whether he wanted to immortalise his wife in her naked beauty. From the facts and circumstances of the instant case I find no reason to hold that the taking of photograph of the wife in her nude by her husband amounted to mental cruelty. So I am left with the other aspect of the question, i.e. whether the respondent's addressing his wife as 'Kept' amounted to mental cruelty. Nowhere it is denied by the respondent that he bad not called her as his 'Kept'. The petitioner examining herself as P.W. 1 has deposed that her husband used to call her 'Kept'. This statement of the petitioner on oath was never challenged in her cross-examination. It is really a very serious matter for a legally married wife to be called 'Kept' by her own husband. It hurts the sentiments and the wifely pride of any woman. In my opinion this amounts to mental cruelty which in turn gives rise to a just cause to the wife to live separately from her husband. 5. IT is clear from the records, that the respondent has not paid anything to the petitioner by way of maintenance since the time she had left his house. He has refused to pay maintenance although he has the capacity to maintain. The neglected wife is found to be without any income of her own. 6. THIS brings me to the final question as to what should be the just quantum of maintenance to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner. The gross monthly income of the respondent is Rs. 2,700.00. After deductions on vorious counts, his net salary comes to Rs. 2,025.95p. as per salary certificate Ext. 8. Out of this amount the respondent is to pay Rs. 300.00 per month as maintenance to his minor son who is under the custody of the petitioner, as per judgment and order dt. 30/5/1990 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Keeping this in view I think an amount of Rs. 300.00 per month for the petitioner would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly this revisional application is allowed. 300.00 per month as maintenance to his minor son who is under the custody of the petitioner, as per judgment and order dt. 30/5/1990 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Keeping this in view I think an amount of Rs. 300.00 per month for the petitioner would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly this revisional application is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay maintenance allowances at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per month to the petitioner with effect from the date of the impugned order i.e. with effect from 30/5/1990. The current dues shall be paid within 10th of every succeeding English calender month and the arrear amount for 12 months from 30/5/1990 to 30/5/1991 may be paid in 10 instalments at the rate of Rs. 360.00 each along with the current dues. 7. BEFORE parting, I would like to observe that it is most unfortunate that a newly-married couple soon after enjoying their honeymoon would have to live separately thereby shattering the hopes and aspirations of a happy conjugal life. I hope good sense would prevail, and there would be a happy reunion between the parties. The whole world lies before them.