JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, J. 1. This petition is directed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to invoke inherent powers of this code to correct the alleged injustice to the petitioner, vide order dated 10.11.1990 passed by Illrd Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. She filed, this petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. claiming maintenance before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Mauganj. The Magistrate, however, found that she is living in adultery with her brother-in- law and her allegation about remarrying of her husband was not proved. In spite of her husband's attempt to live with his and family, she did not agree to do so. Hence the petition was dismissed. 2. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that the allegation of adultery against the petitioner, is totally without any evidence, that there was no specific evidence about the extent of earning of the husband, and whether he was earning sufficiently to provide maintenance to the petitioner. The Court also held that, it was not established, that there was sufficient cause to live separate from her husband. 3. Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, are to be exercised by High Court: (i) To make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code (Cr.P.C). (ii) To prevent abuse of the process of the law. (iii) Otherwise to secure ends of justice. So, for securing the ends of justice, the High Court can intervene even against anorderofrevisional Court. Although, ordinarily under the provision of Section 397(3), finality is attached to an order in revision, this, however, will not exclude the inherent powers of the Court to secure the ends of justice, when there is apparent injustice which shocks the conscience of the Court. 4. In the present case, the Sessions Court has been merely awayed by the fact that, the petitioner has no sufficient cause to live separate from the husband, and the husband has not remarried, although, she too was not living an unchaste life. 5. In reaching this conclusion, the Sessions Court appears to have lost sight of the obvious. If false allegations of unchastity are made against a wife, it is a cruelty itself. If such allegation is false, the wife is entitled to live separate from the husband and to seek maintenance. 5. In reaching this conclusion, the Sessions Court appears to have lost sight of the obvious. If false allegations of unchastity are made against a wife, it is a cruelty itself. If such allegation is false, the wife is entitled to live separate from the husband and to seek maintenance. Had the Sessions Court approached the matter from this angle, a proper adjudication ought to have been made. So the observation of the Sessions Court for denying the right of maintenance to the wife was on total misunderstanding of legal implication and effect of allegation of the husband. The Addl. Sessions Judge lost sight of this justification about her separate living. 6. The Magistrate has not discussed at all the evidence regarding capability of the husband to maintain the wife or its extent. The husband was healthy person of 26 years, of age, therefore, a young and healthy person, who claimed in his statement that he was earning with his parents in the field and was also tending the animals. It clearly shows, that he had joint earning with his parents. He was putting in his labour. In that sense, the wife has right to claim maintenance from those earnings. What would be the extent of those earning should have been decided by Trial Magistrate or at least by the Sessions Court. Some fair estimate or day-to-day expenses of life, could be made. The Sessions Court dealt with the matter in a non-serious manner by merely refering to the fact that no specific amount of earning has been stated. The legal position has to be that, a person who is capable of earning has to earn for his dependents i.e. for his wife and child. The evidence of the wife and her witnesses is that this respondent, husband works on land and tends milk animal with his parents. This is admitted by the husband also. The Trial Magistrate should asses, what would be considered as fair earning out of labour put in by this respondent. In such type of case, a wife can hardly be expected to produce specific evidence of earning of husband nor it can be said that the labour of the husband is producing no earning. In fact, an able person is ex- Expected to work for his wife. The respondent is after all living, eating and clothing himself. 7. In such type of case, a wife can hardly be expected to produce specific evidence of earning of husband nor it can be said that the labour of the husband is producing no earning. In fact, an able person is ex- Expected to work for his wife. The respondent is after all living, eating and clothing himself. 7. In view of tine above observation, I find that the findings of both the Courts below were unjustified and based on total misappreciation of law as also of facts. Inferences which ought to have been taken in law, have not been taken. The wife was justified in separate living. There was allegation against her, of living in adul- tery. It amounts to cruelty against her. Husband's earning remains to be assessed by the trial Magistrate, so the present petition is accepted. Findings of both the Courts below are set aside. It will not be proper for this Court, in the first instance to reach the findings of the possible earnings of the husband. The matter is remanded back to the trial Magistrate to reach a conclusion of the extent of the earnings of the husband, on the basis of the evidence existing on this record and then to fix maintenance payable to the petitioner, wife by the husband. 8. The petition is accordingly allowed. Notices to parties shall be given by the trial Magistrate to hear them on quantum of earnings of the husband and quantum of maintenance for wife.