Judgment :- The appeal is filed by the wife, who is aggrieved by the reduction of maintenance by the Lower Appellate Court. This is an astonishing case which reveals the unfair mind-sets revealing a clear gender bias. 2. The wife filed a suit for maintenance in 1963. She was awarded a sum of Rs.50/- per month. This was confirmed in appeal. Thereafter, in 1974 she again claimed enhancement and filed O.S.NO.948 of 1974 and a sum of Rs.150/- was awarded which was reduced to a sum of Rs.120/- in appeal. In 1982, she filed the present suit from which the appeal arises claiming increase of maintenance of Rs.400/- on the ground that cost of living has increased. The respondent resisted the claim. The Trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.250/ - per month. This has been reduced and hence the appeal. 3. The reasons given by the Appellate Court for reducing the maintenance are totally unsustainable. According to the Appellate Court, the wife who had been forced to live apart because the husband married again is guilty of greed. According to the Appellate Court she has not proved she is unable to maintain herself, she only has her eyes on the husband's property. What the Appellate Court failed to see is, this question of being unable to maintain herself had been held in her favour in the earlier proceedings and had become final. Her entitlement to maintenance is no longer in doubt. It has been twice accepted. The only dispute is regarding quantum. That is why she had twice filed suits and had claimed maintenance and for subsequent increase. The present suit is only for increase in the quantum which she is legally entitled to claim. 4. The Appellate Court also appears to think that she should have filed the suit for restitution of conjugal right and without doing so she ought not to claim maintenance. It is her case that the husband married again. That is enough to justify her claim for maintenance. 5. Section 18(2)(d) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (LXXVIII of 1956) entitles the wife to live alone without forfeiting her claim to maintenance if the husband has any other wife living. This is her legal right and she does not forfeit that merely because she has not filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. 5. Section 18(2)(d) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (LXXVIII of 1956) entitles the wife to live alone without forfeiting her claim to maintenance if the husband has any other wife living. This is her legal right and she does not forfeit that merely because she has not filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. In any event, that would only be an exercise in futility because the husband has married again. 6. The other accusation that the Lower Appellate Court levels on the wife is the fact that she did not file a petition for divorce. It is clear from her evidence in the present suit that they had been married 37 years ago and that she was long ago deserted because she had no issues. This woman may not choose to file a petition for divorce now, when she is well past her fifties and in any event, the option to file a petition for divorce is her individual choice. It is not open to the Court to find fault with her for not filing an application for divorce. 7. The following sentence from the Appellate Court judgment is extracted just to show the attitude which the learned Judge had taken to this wife who has come to Court claiming a paltry sum of Rs.250/-. 8. The 4th charge that the Lower Appellate Court levels against her is her failure to attempt to rejoin her husband. The learned Judge obviously expects this wife to go and suffer the indignity of living in a house where she is unwanted by her husband and where the second wife and her children are living. This would affect her dignity as a human being, to put it mildly. According to the learned Judge, this is one option that is open to her instead of filing a suit for maintenance. 9. The wife is also found fault with for not prosecuting her case for bigamy. Perhaps, many women take a fatalistic attitude and feel that punishing the husband is not going to improve their lot and that, apart from the satisfaction of successfully launching a criminal action against the husband she will not gain anything. May be for this reason many wives in this country do not proceed with this option. Perhaps, many women take a fatalistic attitude and feel that punishing the husband is not going to improve their lot and that, apart from the satisfaction of successfully launching a criminal action against the husband she will not gain anything. May be for this reason many wives in this country do not proceed with this option. But that does not make them guilty of acquiescence in the conduct of the husband nor does it acquit the husband of the offence under the Indian Penal Code. 10. So according to the Lower Appellate Court though this wife had so many legal options open to her she chose to file the suit for maintenance because of greed for money and that too for the princely sum of Rs.400/-. Words fail to describe the totally unfair and unjust attitude taken by the Court below, unbefitting a person with judicial authority. 11. When she has claimed the increase in maintenance, the learned Judge takes note of the increase in cost of living to take a sympathetic attitude in favour of the husband. Since the husband has to maintain the second family, the learned Judge with great empathy feels that some reduction in the maintenance is warranted, the same criterion is not applied in favour of the appellant to atleast grant the sum of Rs.250/- which is really nothing in today's contest as monthly maintenance. The scales of justice should be held equally, the manner in which the scales have been held in this case, is left to the imagination. (Emphasis supplied) 12. The unjust and shocking reasoning given by the Appellate Court leaves this Court with no option but to interfere in second appeal. The judgment anddecree of the Appellate Court are set aside and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court are restored. The second appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.