C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) PETITION in M. C. No. 62 of 2001 filed under section 125 Cr. P. C. by the respondent, seeking maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month from the petitioner, was dismissed on 13-09-2002 by the learned Magistrate, on the ground that respondent came to court at a belated stage. Revision in Crl. R. P. No. 113 of 2002 preferred by the first respondent, questioning the order of dismissal, was allowed by the impugned order by the sessions Court. Hence, this petition, questioning the order in revision. ( 2 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, since first respondent had voluntarily left the society of the petitioner as long back as in 1986, and addressed a letter in Ex. R-1 to the petitioner that she is not interested in living with him, and since first respondent is able to maintain herself from over fifteen years prior to the filing of the M. C. , by running or working in a Telephone booth, the Sessions Court was in error in allowing the revision, and awarding maintenance to the first respondent against the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for first respondent is that since the whereabouts of the petitioner were not known first respondent could not initiate the proceedings earlier, and since the petitioner is living with another woman, there is no scope for the first respondent living with the petitioner and since the Sessions Court gave cogent reasons for allowing the revision, there are no grounds to interfere with the order impugned. ( 3 ) THE fact that the petitioner and the first respondent were living separately from 1986 onwards is not denied or disputed. Mainly on the ground that the first respondent does not have sufficient means to maintain herself, and failed to establish that there is neglect or refusal on the part of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition filed by the first respondent. Sessions Court on the basis of Ex. R-3 photograph, which is admitted by the petitioner as R. W. 1, and disbelieving theory of the petitioner that first respondent left the house with an amount of rs. Sessions Court on the basis of Ex. R-3 photograph, which is admitted by the petitioner as R. W. 1, and disbelieving theory of the petitioner that first respondent left the house with an amount of rs. 75,000/- taken as hand loan by him for purchase of a house, and observing that first respondent is being maintained by her parents during all the years held that first respondent does have reasonable grounds for staying away from the petitioner and is entitled to seek maintenance from the petitioner, and since the telephone in the booth, which is said to berun or in which she is employed, is disconnected, question of the first respondent being able to maintain herself does not arise, awarded maintenance of rs. 300/- per month to the first respondent against the petitioner. ( 4 ) WHILE exercising jurisdiction under section 482 Cr. P. C, against an order under revision passed by a Sessions Court, this court will not act like an appellate Court and reappraise the evidence adduced by parties, and would only look into the question whether an illegality or irregularity is committed by the revision court. The reasons given by the Sessions Court for holding that first respondent is entitled to maintenance are cogent and unimpeachable. When there is prima facie evidence to show that her husband is living with another woman, the wife need not live in the same house. In view of Ex. B-1 photograph, admitted by the petitioner, it is prima facie evidence that he has relationship with another woman and so even assuming that first respondent left the society of the petitioner, on her own That fact is not and cannot be a ground for refusing maintenance to her. Just like unfounded allegation of unchastity is a ground for a wife living away from her husband, Unfounded allegation of theft also should be taken as a ground for the wife living away from her husband. Petitioner who alleged that first respondent absconded with Rs. 75,000/- borrowed by him from his friends failed to establish that fact. The fact that petitioner accused of the first respondent of theft also is sufficient ground for the first respondent living away from him. ( 5 ) IN the above circumstances, mere delay in filing the petition per se is not a ground for rejecting the petition. ( 6 ) RS. The fact that petitioner accused of the first respondent of theft also is sufficient ground for the first respondent living away from him. ( 5 ) IN the above circumstances, mere delay in filing the petition per se is not a ground for rejecting the petition. ( 6 ) RS. 300/- per month awarded as maintenance to the first respondent by the sessions Court cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant, and even assuming that first respondent was running a telephone booth, she is not disentitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner. She claimed maintenance from petitioner obviously because she is unable to maintain herself from the income derived from the Telephone booth. Even if a wife is able to earn a small amount by labour or otherwise, to keep herself away from starvation, that fact it cannot be a ground for dismissal for a petition under Section 125 cr. P. C. , if the income earned by a wife is not sufficient to make a decent living. If a wife is unable "to lead a comfortable life with the income that is being earned by her, and if her husband who is having sufficient means, neglected or refused to maintain her, she is entitled to seek maintenance from her husband. Therefore, I find no grounds to interfere with the order awarding Rs. 300/- per month as maintenance to the first respondent by the Sessions Court. ( 7 ) HENCE, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.