Order.- This revision case is filed to revise the decision of the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur in Cr. A. No. 384 of 1966 confirming the conviction of the petitioner K. Venkateswarlu under section 498, Indian Penal Code, but reducing the sentence of six weeks imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 400. The short facts are that the complainant Maganti Venkateshwarlu of Andakur village married Gangamma, the second accused, his sister’s daughter, 20 years ago and had three children by her. He also presented her a gold chain and some gold jewels. About 2½ months prior to 7th April, 1966, she went to her parents house at Garapadu village with those jewels and there the first accused Kankanala Venkateshwarlu developed intimacy with Gangamma and enticed her away with the jewels. After moving about from place to place, finally returned to Garapad village and living as husband and wife in a house belonging to A-1. There upon a complaint was laid by the husband under section 498, Indian Penal Code. The Special Second Class Magistrate, Sattenapalli on an appreciation of evidence adduced, held that the prosecution established the guilt of A-1 for enticing away A-2 whom he knew to be a married woman with three children and the wife of the complainant, and that he was living with her with the intention of having illicit intercourse and that he was therefore guilty under section 498, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six weeks. On an appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Gaunter confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence into a fine of Rs. 400. It is against this conviction that the revision has been preferred. Sri Padmanabha Reddy the learned Counsel for the petitioner not only convassed the correctness of the findings of fact but also raised a legal contention that when he wife was in the house of her parents, she could not be said to be in the custody of her husband and therefore the offence of section 498 Indian Penal Code, is not made out even if she was enticed away by A-1. As regards the first contention that A-1 did not entice A-2 the Courts below have discussed in detail the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 and found that A-1 enticed A-2 and kept her in a separate house in his village. As regards the first contention that A-1 did not entice A-2 the Courts below have discussed in detail the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 and found that A-1 enticed A-2 and kept her in a separate house in his village. It was also found on the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 which corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 that even though a request was made to A-1 to send back A-2 with the jewels and he agreed to return the jewels, but refused to send her back and both A-1 and A-2 continued to live together in the same house. The evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 established that A-1 enticed A-2 and kept her separately, and that they are living as husband and wife, and that A-1 had knowledge that she was the legally wedded wife of the complainant by whom she bore three children. There can therefore be no doubt that A-1 enticed away A-2 knowing that she is the wife of the complainant with the intent that he may have Illicit intercourse with her. The only other ingredient of the offence is whether A-2 was taken from any person having the care of her on behalf of her husband. The learned Counsel Sri Padmanabha Reddy contends that even according to the prosecution, the wife was enticed away by A-1 when she was living in the house of her parents in a village different from that of the husband, that she is also major, and the parents cannot be said to be persons having the care of the wife on behalf of the husband, and therefore enticing away from their house would not constitute an offence. The argument no doubt appears to be attractive but has absolutely no force. So long as the marital relationship between the husband and wife continues, the mere fact that the wife absents herself from the house of the husband, does not mean that she ceased to be in the care of the husband, or that the persons with whom she is staying temporarily are not having the care of her on behalf of the husband. Where circumstances establish that the wife left the husband’s house on account of quarrel or with an unequivocal intention of discontinuing the marital tie the position may be different; but where as in this case such facts do not exist and the relations between the husband and wife are cordial and the wife went to the parents’ house only with the intention of returning to the husband’s house, if she was enticed while staying in the partent’s house, there can be no doubt that she was taken away from a person "having the care of her on behalf of her husband. If authority is needed, reference may be made to an old decision of the Madras High Court in In re Nattara Munisami1, In that case the facts were that there was no quarrel between husband and wife. The wife went to her mother’s house. The husband knew where she was and while staying at mother’s house, she was enticed away. The Magistrate acquitted the accused but their Lordships Kernan and Parker, JJ., set aside the conviction holding that there was evidence of ‘taking away’ within the meaning of section 498, Indian Penal Code and that the offence was made out. In Ramnarayan v. Emperor2 the facts were that a woman was discarded by her husband and. was living with her father and brother. She was not happy. She fell in love with the accused who was her next door neighbour, and both of them eloped to another place. A contention was raised that the accused was not guilty under section 498, Indian Penal Code. On the facts it was held by Broomfield and Sen, JJ.,and the two were in love with one another, and the elopement was a joint adventure, in which the motive force was mutual affection and not any enticement by the accused and that on the facts it could not be said in any sense that the wife was kept back by the accused from her husband or from the father, the complainant, in that case. Neither force nor persuasion was at all necessary to keep her with the accused. Their Lordships held she was a free agent and stayed with him because she wished to do so, and it was impossible to say that the accused detained her. Neither force nor persuasion was at all necessary to keep her with the accused. Their Lordships held she was a free agent and stayed with him because she wished to do so, and it was impossible to say that the accused detained her. That case does not lay down a principle different from what was laid down by the Madras High Court. The facts in that case were such that they were not prepared to say that there was nay enticement by the accused. For these reasons I hold that the accused is guilty of having enticed her away from a person having the care of her on behalf of her husband. In the result the conviction under section 498, Indian Penal Code, is right and needs no interference. The revision is dismissed. A.B.K. ----- Revision dismissed.