JUDGMENT : V. Gopalaswamy, J. - This revision is preferred against the judgment dated 14.3.83, passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Balliguda, in Misc. Case No. 8 of 1982, on his file, directing the Petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife (the present opposite party) at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month after negativing the plea of the Petitioner that the opposite party was not entitled to claim any maintenance as she was living in adultery. 2. Admittedly the opposite party was the legally married wife of the Petitioner and two children were born to them out of their wedlock. The opposite party obtained an ex parte order from the Court on 27.4.1978 to the effect that she was entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month. She was further awarded an additional sum of Rs. 60/- per month for the maintenance of the children who were living with her. As the opposite party filed an application before the S.D.J.M. for enforcement of the order passed in her favour in the earlier Misc. Case No. 36 of 1977, the Petitioner raised an objection that she was not entitled to any maintenance on two grounds. Firstly that as the children were living with him, she was not entitled to claim any amount for their maintenance and secondly that as she was living in adultery, she cannot clam any amount towards her own maintenance. The learned S.D.J.M. found that as the children were found to be staying with the present Petitioner the opposite party is not entitled to be paid any amount towards their maintenance on a consideration of the evidence, the learned S.D.J.M. rejected the plea of the Petitioner that his wife was living in adultery and therefore, he directed him to pay the maintenance to his wife as ordered. Hence this revision. 3. On a careful consideration of the evidence, the learned S.D.J.M. found that the Petitioner could not satisfactorily prove that his wife was living in adultery, likewise, the allegation that the opposite party become pregnant through her illicit intimacy with the Gania Das was disbelieved. It was only when the opposite party approached the Court, for enforcement of the order of maintenance in her favour, for the first time, the Petitioner had levelled the allegation of adultery against her, though, according to him, she was alleged living in adultery since long prior to that date. It was only when the opposite party approached the Court, for enforcement of the order of maintenance in her favour, for the first time, the Petitioner had levelled the allegation of adultery against her, though, according to him, she was alleged living in adultery since long prior to that date. This was a circumstance that was rightly taken into consideration against the Petitioner. There is nothing in the impugned order to show that the learned S.D.J.M. has not properly appreciated the evidence. The orders granting maintenance to helpless wives and children are not to be lightly interfered with in revision. If no grave illegality or manifest injustice is made out. In the instant case, while passing the impugned order, the learned S.D.J.M., has not committed any such illegality as to justify interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 4. In the result, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed