Order This is a petition to revise the order of the City Magistrate, Division No. 2 whereby maintenance of Rs. 75 per month was awarded to the respondent who is the wife of the petitioner. Formerly, the respondent had claimed maintenance and applied under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, but that was rejected on .the ground that the husband was not guilty of neglect. This order was upheld even in revision. Later on, it appears the wife tried to return to her husband. All her efforts to remain with him proved futile and finally it is said that as a result of negotiations through Sri Mallappa Kollur, a Congressman, the husband gave a writing promising to pay her Rs. 50 per month; but he failed to be as good as his word. After several efforts, the wife again filed a petition on the basis of neglect and refusal of the husband to keep her with him or to maintain her. The husband took up a legal plea that when once the right of maintenance was refused by the Court, the wife has no right to file a second petition for maintenance. It was also stated that the husband is not guilty of refusal to maintain, that the wife is employed as a doctor and has sufficient income for her maintenance and therefore he is not liable to pay her any maintenance. The trial Court on the evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that subsequent refusal and neglect has been proved, that the previous order is no bar, and that the present petition is maintainable on fresh facts and thus passed an order granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75 per month. So far as the facts are concerned, this Court will not ordinarily review the evidence unless the finding of fact of the learned Magistrate is vitiated by a wrong approach to the subject. I see nothing of the kind in this case. Besides, the evidence on record is sufficient for the finding arrived at by the Court below. It is urged that the previous order stands in the way of the present proceedings. The present proceeding evidently is based on fresh cause of action for the present petitioner has refused to keep the wife with him and has neglected to maintain her. The depositions of the witnesses in this regard are clear and convincing. It is urged that the previous order stands in the way of the present proceedings. The present proceeding evidently is based on fresh cause of action for the present petitioner has refused to keep the wife with him and has neglected to maintain her. The depositions of the witnesses in this regard are clear and convincing. The writing given by the husband which is admitted in the sworn testimony though attributed only to coercion or undue influence of which there is no proof lends support to the same that the husband did not wish to take her back. As held in Dumni v. Saran1, a second petition under these circumstances based on fresh cause of action is tenable under the provisions of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. It is next argued that since the husband is alleged to have executed a document which gives a cause of action for the civil suit, the criminal Court should only direct the parties to go to civil Court and dismiss the petition filed. In this regard, I am referred to the case of the Lahore High Court in Shamsingh v. Mt. Hakam Devi2, but the Madras High Court in Ramabai v. Bhojarao3, has held that even if there be a compromise, the petition will not be dismissed on that ground. Only the agreed quantum of maintenance will be taken into consideration at the time of passing the order. It is further argued that the writing relied on was executed before the revision petition in the previous proceeding was disposed of by the High Court and the High Court refused to take into consideration the said writing and hence that writing cannot now be taken into consideration for the purpose of this petition. As pointed out above, the criminal Court cannot and does not make the compromise the basis for its order though it may be that while fixing the quantum the agreed amount in the compromise may be taken into consideration. The present petitions based on facts of refusal and neglect to maintain the wife and the compromise is relied on merely as one of the circumstances in support of the claim. The last argument advanced is that the wife has a calling and gets sufficient income and that no order for maintenance should therefore have been made. I cannot agree with this. The husband has the legal duty to maintain his wife. The last argument advanced is that the wife has a calling and gets sufficient income and that no order for maintenance should therefore have been made. I cannot agree with this. The husband has the legal duty to maintain his wife. Of course, while fixing the quantum the resources or the income of the wife may also be taken into consideration. In this particular case, it appears that the wife is not a permanent employee. She is holding a temporary post. Under these circumstances, Rs. 50 per month by way of maintenance would have been the reasonable amount especially so when the husband has to pay another sum of Rs. 50 per month for the child. I therefore modify the order of the Court below and direct that a sum of Rs. 50 per month be paid by way of maintenance to the petitioner from the date of the order of the lower Court With this modification, the revision petition is dismissed. S.C.V. ----- Order modified.