MALAY KUMAR BASU, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 11. 11. 1998 passed by Shri S. Bhattacharyya, S. D. J. M. , Diamond Harbour in Misc. Case No. 46 of 1995/t. R. No. 379/1998 under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. By this order the learned S. D. J. M. allowed a maintenance petition under Section 125, Cr. P. C. filed by Sarama Halder (wife of the present revisional applicant) and directed the revisional applicant (opposite party in that case) to pay maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. In this revisional application the appellant/husband has prayed for an order setting aside the impugned order of the S. D. J. M. on the ground that the same is illegal and unsustainable. ( 2 ) THE relationship of husband and wife between the parties is undisputed. Admittedly, the applicant married the respondent-Sara ma, according to Hindu rites. The case of the petitioner-wife before the learned Magistrate was that the opposite party-husband used to press her for fetching money from her father but her father being a poor man and unable to meet the demand, her husband and her in-laws used to torture her in various ways including physical assault, stoppage of supply of food, etc. At last on 26. 9. 1954 her husband assaulted her and took off her ornaments and left the house. She then lodged a diary at Kulpi P. S. on 27. 9. 1994. Thereafter, on 1. 11. 1994 her in-laws picked up quarrel with her and drove her from her matrimonial house after physically assaulting her. Since then she had been living in her father's house. Thereafter, on 28. 12. 1994 she filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws under Section 498-A, I. P. C. before the Court of S. D. J. M. who sent it to police under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. for investigation and report. During the investigation of the case by police her husband obtained her signature on a paper on the plea that a mutual settlement would be effected. She has since been living in her father's house with great hardship as she has no income of her own and her father being a poor man has no means to provide her maintenance. During the investigation of the case by police her husband obtained her signature on a paper on the plea that a mutual settlement would be effected. She has since been living in her father's house with great hardship as she has no income of her own and her father being a poor man has no means to provide her maintenance. Her husband is a solvent person having landed properties and having a monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand) from his engagement as a contractor, she has prayed for an order of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- every month against the opposite party. ( 3 ) THE opposite party-husband filed a written petition denying all the material allegations and contending that the petitioner was a woman of loose character and had illicit connection with a young man, named, Aloke Halder of Gopal Nagar Village. On 21st May , 1994 she left her house taking away with him gold ornaments and good quality garments worth Rs. 2,000/ -. The opposite party tried to take her back in vain. He then filed a complaint before the Court of S. D. J. M. on 4. 6. 1994 which was sent to the O. C. , Kulpi P. S. under Section 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. for investigation and report. During investigation of that case the police officer-in-charge called both the parties to the P. S. on 8. 12. 1994 and got a deed of settlement executed by them. Both of them put their signatures thereon voluntarily. As per the terms of this compromise deed the opposite party was to provide maintenance to the wife up to 8. 1. 1995 on which date he would have to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner as maintenance for her whole life and also to return to her the furniture and utensils which her father gave to her as dowry during her marriage whereupon the marital ties between them would come to an end and all litigations filed by both would be withdrawn. Accordingly, the petitioner-wife came to the house of the opposite party to live with him again, but before expiry of the above date, on 31. 12. 1994, the father of the petitioner took the petitioner from the house of the opposite party after giving a written undertaking. Accordingly, the petitioner-wife came to the house of the opposite party to live with him again, but before expiry of the above date, on 31. 12. 1994, the father of the petitioner took the petitioner from the house of the opposite party after giving a written undertaking. As per the said deed of mutual compromise, the opposite party deposited cash of Rs. 10,000/- and various other articles as per the agreement before the O. C. , Kulpi P. S. on 11. 1. 1995 and the O. C. gave a receipt to the opposite party after receiving the same. But even after this the petitioner-wife filed this false petition for maintenance dated 31. 1. 1995 and also a criminal case under Section 498-A of I. P. C. The petitioner had no problem regarding her maintenance since she was living with the said Aloke Halder whereas the opposite party's financial condition was not at all good as he used to earn his livelihood as a day labourer and under all these circumstances the maintenance petition was liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) AFTER taking evidence of both the parties and hearing arguments and considering all the materials on record, the learned Magistrate has found that opposite party-husband is not to be blamed alone and both the parties have responsibility in the matter of the differences of opinion and disunion cropping up between the two, but however, according to him since under the law it is the duty of the husband to maintain his legally married wife till she is remarried by any other person after being divorced, the learned Magistrate has held him liable to pay on account of his wife's maintenance a sum of Rs. 400/- every month. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by these findings of the learned Magistrate, the opposite, party-husband has preferred the present revisional application challenging the same as erroneous and liable to be set aside. 400/- every month. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by these findings of the learned Magistrate, the opposite, party-husband has preferred the present revisional application challenging the same as erroneous and liable to be set aside. The learned Advocate for the revisional appellant-husband has contended that the respondent-wife cannot be entitled to get any maintenance on the ground that from the very beginning of their married life she did not maintain the conjugal life properly and without intimating to him she frequently left her matrimonial home, so that the husband became compelled to lodge diaries in the Kulpi P. S. against her (vide diaries dated 10th January 1993; 2nd December, 1993; 2nd May, 1994; 21st May, 1994, and 2nd June, 1994 ). Secondly, the husband lodged a complaint before the Court of S. D. J. M. , Diamond Harbour on4th June, 1994 which was sent to police for investigation report under Section 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. and during that investigation a mutual settlement was effected between the parties at the instance of the police officer and in consequence thereof there was an agreement for mutual divorce between them and in consideration of that the husband-applicant deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the life-long maintenance of the wife in addition to other articles like the utensils, etc. and further the father of the respondent-wife gave a letter of promise to the effect that his daughter would leave her matrimonial home for good and in pursuance thereof he took her away from the matrimonial home. Thirdly, according to learned Advocate for the revisional applicant, an affidavit in respect of the said mutual divorce was affirmed before the Notary Public, Diamond Harbour and the wife received a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on account of her life-long maintenance and after accepting that money she cannot be entitled to any further maintenance. ( 6 ) THE short point that falls for decision in this order is whether the Court below was justified in holding that the respondent-wife was entitled to get maintenance from the revisional applicant and, if so, whether the amount awarded by it on that score was justified. Admittedly, the respondent is the legally married wife of the revisional applicant. Admittedly, also she has since been living in her father's house. Admittedly, the respondent is the legally married wife of the revisional applicant. Admittedly, also she has since been living in her father's house. The case of the husband-applicant is that the respondent-wife is of loose character and had illicit connection with a man, named Aloke Halder and she took away valuable articles belonging to him to his father's house and did not maintain conjugal relationship with him. But, it has to be noted that such allegations of the husband against the wife have not been sustained. The husband is the only witness examined as opposite party-1. In his examination-in-chief he appears to have overzealously stated that his wife was having illicit connection with local boys, although in his written objection it is his definite case that she had such relationship with one particular person named Aloke Halder. This sort of exaggeration highlights his disregard for truth and lack of bona fides. He has further stated in his examination-in-chief that on 21. 5. 1994 in the morning his wife went away from his house taking cash, gold ornaments, sarees, etc. and he searched for her in many places and finally found her with one Aloke Halder at Atpara under Usti P. S. when he tried to persuade her to come back with him, but the relations of Sarama were about to man-handle him and he henced fled away. From this one is not convinced that the charge of her having illicit connection with Aloke Halder has been brought home in the least. In the first place, to simply find Sarama with Aloke Halder does not necessarily suggest that she was having illicit connection with him. The opposite party-1 has not made any whisper about the manner in which Sarama was found with Aloke Halder or about any further details touching their relationship. The mere fact that the said Aloke Halder was present where Sarama was found along-with her other relations cannot be an index of or cannot lead us to conclude that there was any sexual relationship between the two. It is hard to believe that relations of Sarama who were present there and were about to assault him physically as alleged by him would allow Sarama to develop illicit connections with another man in their presence. It is hard to believe that relations of Sarama who were present there and were about to assault him physically as alleged by him would allow Sarama to develop illicit connections with another man in their presence. Secondly, not a single person either interested or disinterested, is coming to support such a story of the revisional applicant-husband levelling allegations touching the moral character of his wife. Thirdly, it does not seem to be at all probable or likely, regard being had to the ordinary course of human behavior, that being a husband and after seeing his wife having illicit relationship with another / man he would remain so unperturbed as to try to persuade her to come back with him just after he discovered such disconcerting facts as alleged. It is thus clear that the revisional applicant's case that his wife has been living in adultery has not been proved. ( 7 ) UNDER Section 125, Cr. P. C. a legally married wife, if unable to maintain herself, is entitled to receive maintenance from her husband on the strength of an order from the Court, if the husband having sufficient means refuses or neglects to maintain her; but she will be disentitled to get this relief, if she is living in adultery or if without any sufficient reasons she refuses to live with her husband or that they are living separately by mutual consent. ( 8 ) THE question is whether the applicant/husband has refused or neglected to provide maintenance to the respondent or whether she has of her own accord has been living separately from the husband without any rhyme or reason or as a result of any mutual settlement as alleged by the husband. It is the case of the husband that at the instance of the local police officer a compromise was effected between them and the terms of settlement were reduced into writing and that deed was signed by both of them. As per this settlement the husband was to return to her the articles (as listed) which he received as marriage gifts plus cash of rupees ten thousand and also to provide maintenance to her up to 8th January, 1995 and thereupon the marital tie between them would come to an end. As per this settlement the husband was to return to her the articles (as listed) which he received as marriage gifts plus cash of rupees ten thousand and also to provide maintenance to her up to 8th January, 1995 and thereupon the marital tie between them would come to an end. In support of this story the husband filed before the learned Magistrate the alleged Deed of Settlement which has been marked as Exbt.-B without any objection. It is true that the wife has not denied the signature appearing on this deed to be of her, but her case is that she signed it at the instance of her husband without being given an opportunity to go through or properly understand the contents of the deed. Be that as it may, it is needless to point out that such an agreement by itself does not have any legal effect of dissolving the marriage in the absence of an appropriate decree from a Court of law. The only value of such a document in the present case lies in its capacity to afford evidence for the purpose of determination of the question whether the separate living of the wife has been the result of any mutual settlement between the parties or of any act of violence on the part of the husband driving the wife out from his house. This document (Exbt.-B) is accompanied by another document (Exbt.-C), purporting to be a receipt granted by the O. C. of Kulpi P. S. to the effect that he received a number of articles being in the nature of utensils, beddings etc. and cash of Rs. 10,000/- from the husband Nishi Kanta Halder on 11th January, 1995. It is the contention on behalf of the husband that as per the terms of the said deed of agreement he having delivered those articles as well as having given a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of the wife's life-long maintenance, it must be presumed that their marital relationship came to an end in view of the terms of the said mutual settlement. But, this contention of the husband cannot be accepted, because the said receipt (Exbt.-C) does not show that the money or the articles as listed herein were actually received by the respondent-wife. But, this contention of the husband cannot be accepted, because the said receipt (Exbt.-C) does not show that the money or the articles as listed herein were actually received by the respondent-wife. The statement in the receipt given by the O. C. , Kulpi P. S. that he would hand over such articles and money to Smt. Sarama Halder cannot be taken to mean that he has really handed over the same to her. On the other hand, it should be presumed that those things have not yet been delivered in the hands of Sarama in view of the express words used in the last line of the said receipt (Exbt.-C) to the effect "these articles will be handed over to Sarama after divorce from learned Court". Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the mutual compromise deed as claimed by the husband " has been given effect to. These findings will be strengthened for the added reason that as per the husband's own case Sarama whom he brought back in terms of the said Deed of Settlement and was to be maintained by him till 8. 1. 1995 was suddenly taken back by her father before the expiry of that date. This also shows that the terms of the alleged Deed of Settlement were again violated. Sarama's father Chittaranjan Mondal gave a written undertaking which has been filed and relied upon by the husband has been marked Exbt.-D. This document shows that the father of Sarama took her away from the house of her husband in the presence of local witnesses for the reason that the relationship between the husband and the wife had become strained. This fact which is not disputed by the husband highlights that Sarama's leaving the company of her husband was not a unilateral act on her part, far less in consequence of any mutual settlement. On the other hand, as this written undertaking suggests, her father had to take her back in the presence of village people in view of her relationship with the husband showing signs of deterioration. This is apart from the fact that the case of the wife as made out in her petition under Section 125, Cr. On the other hand, as this written undertaking suggests, her father had to take her back in the presence of village people in view of her relationship with the husband showing signs of deterioration. This is apart from the fact that the case of the wife as made out in her petition under Section 125, Cr. P. C as well as her examination-in-chief that she had been physically assaulted by her in-laws and driven out of her matrimonial home has been corroborated by a number of disinterested neighbors of those in-laws themselves. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, as per the case of the husband himself the terms of his alleged mutual agreement ultimately failed. If that be so, the departure of Sarama from her husband's cause cannot be treated to be in compliance with any such mutual agreement. So the question will arise if during the subsequent period the husband took any step towards providing maintenance for his wife while she was living in her father's house In that respect the position appears to be undisputed that he never cared to take any information about his wife's well-being, much less providing maintenance for her in any fashion. This certainly signifies his neglect in the matter of his wife's maintenance. It should be noted in this connection that the settled principle of law is that even a divorced wife will be entitled to get maintenance from her husband so long as she is not remarried by another person, if of course, other preconditions are fulfilled. Here, as I have shown above, it has been proved from the materials on record that the separate living of the wife is not without any reasonable cause nor it is as a result of any mutual settlement between the parties. On the other hand, the circumstances have indicated that she had been compelled to leave her husband's house due to the latter's failure to create a congenial atmosphere where she could lead a peaceful marital life. Therefore, there cannot be arty reason why she should be deprived of the benefits of the salutary provisions of Section 125, Cr. P. C. The Court below appears to have rightly awarded maintenance in her favour. So far as the question of financial capacity of the husband is concerned, I do not consider the amount of Rs. Therefore, there cannot be arty reason why she should be deprived of the benefits of the salutary provisions of Section 125, Cr. P. C. The Court below appears to have rightly awarded maintenance in her favour. So far as the question of financial capacity of the husband is concerned, I do not consider the amount of Rs. 400/- to be exorbitant for him to pay, because if we go by his own case alone that he is a day labourer and the rate of daily wage of such a labourer is not less than Rs. 40/- and even if the Court does not take judicial notice of the fact that the daily wages for a day labourer at present is far bigger an amount, even then it is to be taken that he earns a minimum of Rs. 1,200/- per month. On the other hand, it is practically admitted that the wife is not employed and has no source of income of her own. In the written objection, the husband has pleaded that she has been at present maintained by the person, named Aloke Halder, but conspicuously enough evidence in this regard is nil. ( 10 ) IN view of the above discussion there will be no jurisdiction in taking a different view from what the learned Magistrate adopted. The impugned order is upheld and the revisional application be dismissed. The husband-revisional applicant is directed to make payment of the arrears of maintenance amount within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order of this Court is communicated to the Court below. The L. C. R. be sent down to the Court below forthwith.