Order.- The respondent Sharnamma filed an application under section 488 Criminal Procedure Code, in the year 1961 against her husband Kantappa, petitioner herein, for maintenance on the ground that her husband had neglected and refused to maintain her and obtained an order of maintenance. dated 2nd August 1964 The wife filed an application under section 488(3) for recovery of Rs. 240 being the arrears of maintenance due for the period 2nd August, 1964 to 2nd August, 1965. The husband pleaded that his wife had been living in adultery even after the date of maintenance order and therefore, he was not liable to pay any amount. The learned Magistrate overruled his objection on the ground that a similar ground had been taken by the husband in a divorce suit filed by him, which was dismissed on 30th October, 1965, after contest. The husband preferred a revision petition in the Court of the Sessions Judge at Bidar against the order of the learned Magistrate, without success. This petition is directed against that order, rejecting the plea of the husband that his wife is leading an adulterous life and that she is not entitled to maintenance. It is argued before me by Mr. Santosh Hegde, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that it is open to the husband to raise in a proceeding for recovery of maintenance the question whether the wife is living in adultery even after 1 he order of maintenance. The learned Magistrate, it appears, had tried the suit filed by the husband for divorce, in which the husband had pleaded that the wife was leading an adulterous life. As could be gathered from the orders of the Courts below, the husband had pleaded in the suit that he had divorced his wife as far back as 1948 as she was leading an adulterous life. The suit was dismissed by the very same Magistrate, as he found that there was no satisfactory evidence adduced by the husband that the wife was leading an adulterous life. The learned Magistrate was not correct in importing the knowledge acquired by him in some other case. An order under sub-section (4) of section 488 should be made by a Magistrate on proof in the proceedings and not upon any other basis. The learned Magistrate was not correct in importing the knowledge acquired by him in some other case. An order under sub-section (4) of section 488 should be made by a Magistrate on proof in the proceedings and not upon any other basis. Sub-section (4) of section 488 provides that 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 refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. Where the husband, against whom an order for maintenance of his wife has been passed, objects to the claim for arrears on the ground that the wife is living in adultery and as such she is not entitled to recover any maintenance, the Magistrate is bound to take evidence on the question whether the wife has been living in adultery since the date of the Magistrate’s order for maintenance. The question whether the wife is leading an adulterous life after the passing of the order for maintenance is a question of fact, which arises at any time. Because the husband failed to prove in his suit that the wife was leading an adulterous life in 1948, that could not be the ground to reject his plea, if he files an application alleging that the wife is leading an adulterous life subsequent to the passing of the order for maintenance. In the enquiry on the application of the wife under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, for maintenance if the husband did not plead that the wife was leading an adulterous life and therefore she was not entitled for maintenance, that cannot also be the basis for rejecting the application made by the husband subsequently attributing adulterous life to his wife. What the learned Magistrate has done in this case is that he imported his knowledge of the civil suit, while deciding the question whether the allegations made by the husband were true or not. He was not justified in doing so. The orders passed by the Courts below are, therefore, liable to be set aside and accordingly they are set aside. The records are sent back to the Magistrate to dispose of the objection raised by the husband in accordance with law. The petition is allowed. S.V.S. ----- Petition allowed.