Judgment S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.K. Prasad foi the petitioner and Mr. Sekhar Sinha for the State. 2. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 15.10.1996 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Tenughat under Sec. 125, Cr.P.C. directing the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 400.00 per month as maintenance to the opposite party No. 2 3. It appears that Sahina Khatoon, wife of the petitioner filed a petition before the Court below under the aforesaid provision for grant of maintenance @ Rs. 2,500 / - per month for herself and her son and daughter alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner is earning Rs. 7,800.00 per month. She had alleged that without any reason all of a sudden she was being tortured and was refused food, etc. The petitioner also stopped maintaining her and her children and she being a pardanashin Muslim woman, cannot main tain herself and her two children by accepting any job outside. 4. On being noticed the Apposite party/husband appeared and filed show cause countering the allegation of the wife stating that he is ready to keep his wife and maintain her. He stated that his monthly income is Rs. 600.00 and the opposite party/wife herein has deserted him without any rhyme and reason. 5. Three witnesseswere examined on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 before the Court below who have not only supported the allegation of the wife but also stated that being a driver the petitioner earns five to six thousand rupees per month and also has some landed property from which thousand maundsofpaddyisbeing appropriated. 6. There is no denial of the fact that after filing of the show cause, inspite of repeated opportunity given to the petitioner neither he produced any witness to prove his case nor anybody appeared from him at the time of argument. This compelled the Court below to pass an ex parte order against the petitioner. 7. From the impugned order it appears that the learned Court below, after appreciating the evidence produced on behalf of the wife has come to a finding mat she and her children are entitled to get maintenance of Rs. 400.00 i.e. Rs. 200.00 for tl^e wife and Rs. 100.00 each for son and daughter. 8. Mr. 7. From the impugned order it appears that the learned Court below, after appreciating the evidence produced on behalf of the wife has come to a finding mat she and her children are entitled to get maintenance of Rs. 400.00 i.e. Rs. 200.00 for tl^e wife and Rs. 100.00 each for son and daughter. 8. Mr. Prasad has tried to impress upon the Court by submitting that when the petitioner is willing to keep opposite party No. 2 and maintain her, the Court below should have given some opportunity to reconcile the matter. His next contention is that when the wife has voluntarily deserted the petitioner and without any cogent reason she is living separately, in view of Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 125, Cr.P.C. she was not entitled to get any maintenance. In my considered opinion the contention of Mr. Prasad is only to be noted and rejected. Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. reads as follows: "No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this Section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refused to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent." 9. The petitioner, as observed earlier, did not care to appear before the Court to substantiate his case that without any reason his wife (O.P.) is living separately. Only filing of show cause by the petitioner will not help him inasmuch as his case was not proved before the Court below. 10. However, if the intention of the petitioner is genuine to keep his wife, he may very well move the Court below for modifying the impugned order as provided under Sec. 127, Cr.P.C. In the circumstances of this case, I find no merit in this application which is accordingly, dismissed.