ORDER U.C. Maheskwari, J. Shri P. K. Saxena, learned counsel for applicant. Shri M. M. Jaiswal, learned counsel for non-applicant. Heard. 1. Applicant/husband has preferred this revision against the order dated 18-11-2003, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi in Criminal Revision No. 131/03, whereby the revision of the non-applicant was allowed and the order 16-7-2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Waidhen, in Misc. Cr. Case No. 43/01 by which the application of the non-applicant under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code was dismissed, has been set aside hence, this revision. 2. The factual matrix of the case are that non-applicant has initiated an application under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code in which it was pleaded that she was married with applicant before 34-35 years ago as per rite and ritual of Hindu community. The Gauna ceremony was performed after eight years from the above said marriage. At the initial stage, applicant had cordial and peaceful life with her and during this period, three daughters and one son were begotten from this wedlock. But, after ten years, from the aforesaid period when she has younger daughter about two years old, at that point of time, without any sufficient cause, she was subjected to have been beaten by husband/applicant and ousted from his house along with children. Subsequently, she was not looked after by applicant and under these circumstances she had no choice but to reside with her parents and by showing sufficient means with the applicant said application was filed with a prayer for maintenance amount at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month. 3. By filing reply to the application by the applicant, it was pleaded that non-applicant was never his wife but she was keep. It was also pleaded that four children were begotten by the aforesaid relations with non-applicant. He also pleaded that applicant married with Sonmati from whom he has five children and so far maintenance to non-applicant is concerned, his pleading was that he has already spent the amount over the marriage of daughters of non-applicant and some land and house were also given to her from which she has sufficient means to livelihood and she is not entitled for any amount of maintenance. 4. In view of the aforesaid pleadings parties led their evidence and on appreciation of the same learned trial Court has dismissed the application. 4. In view of the aforesaid pleadings parties led their evidence and on appreciation of the same learned trial Court has dismissed the application. But, on revision the same was allowed and the direction for maintenance was passed. 5. Having heard the learned counsel of the respective parties and on perusing the record of the trial Court and the judgments of the courts below, I am of the considered view on the following grounds that this revision do not have any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. Counsel for applicant submits that the application under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code was filed at very belated stage and, therefore, mere on this ground alone the application was liable to be dismissed. But this aspect was not considered, in support of this contention he placed his reliance on a reported case in the matter of Bhaggo Bai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1984 M.P.W 504 in which it is held : It was found by this Court in Thakurdin's case (supra) that the application made by the wife after about 10-15 years of maintaining herself separately did not disclose any emergency or any case for exercise of his discretionary powers by the Magistrate under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code and that the application made by her was liable to be dismissed summarily on that ground alone. In the opinion of this Court, the same is the situation in the present case. 7. On considering the aforesaid submission, I am not with the agreement of the counsel for the applicant on this point that the delay itself is a ground for rejection of the said application of the non-applicant. In the aforesaid cited case the inference was drawn by considering the facts and circumstances of the parties, those identical circumstances are not involved in the case at hand. Even otherwise, abovesaid case is reported only in the manner of Short Note and it does not explain the all circumstances. So, it is not profitable to the applicant. While, other hand, this Court at earlier occasion has decided this question in the matter of Smt. Jhalli Bai vs. Dayaram reported in 1991 MPJR 249 in which it is held: 8. So, it is not profitable to the applicant. While, other hand, this Court at earlier occasion has decided this question in the matter of Smt. Jhalli Bai vs. Dayaram reported in 1991 MPJR 249 in which it is held: 8. In view of the aforesaid subsequent case when the facts of the present case is examined then it is apparent that on marriages of the daughters and son and having become old age of the non-applicant has given the ground to file the application because in abovesaid marriages non-applicant spent too much amount and thereafter she has no means for her livelihood, then the application was moved. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and subsequent dictum of this Court, I hold that on the ground of delay, the application of the non-applicant could not be thrown away by the trial Court but without considering the aforesaid aspects the application was dismissed but on revision it was properly considered and decided on merits. 9. Counsel for applicant also submits that the non-applicant has not proved that she is wife of applicant and mere on this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 10. While, counsel for non-applicant responded that the relationship as husband and wife was found by the trial Court and the same was not challenged by the applicant by filing any revision or other proceedings before the superior Court, and, therefore, this finding is not open to challenge in this revision. On perusing the impugned judgment, it is specifically mentioned in para 7 that the trial Court has decided that non-applicant is wife of applicant and the same is not challenged and, therefore, revisional Court has come at the right conclusion, which I also confirmed so this submission is also failed. 10A. On behalf of applicant third submission was that the applicant has already given some land and house to the non-applicant and according to him, she has sufficient means of her livelihood from the agricultural land and on this count also she is not entitled for maintenance. While, counsel for non-applicant submitted that abovesaid land was never given to her but was remained in possession of elder brother of the applicant who is cultivating the same and out of this land she has not been given any means. While, counsel for non-applicant submitted that abovesaid land was never given to her but was remained in possession of elder brother of the applicant who is cultivating the same and out of this land she has not been given any means. On perusal of the record, it is proved that the land was never transferred or mutated in the name of non-applicant. Non-applicant was neither in possession nor was cultivating the land and on the contrary the same is in possession of elder brother of the applicant. Therefore, this ground is also not helping to the applicant. 11. The other submission of the applicant counsel was that as non-applicant is residing with her adult son who is looking after her then the responsibility of the maintenance cannot be fastened over the applicant. On considering this submission, I am of the considered view, that if husband is alive and able-bodied person then deserted or neglected wife like non-applicant has a right to live separately and claim the maintenance from the husband. So, this ground is also not helping to the applicant. Although, in this regard counsel for applicant submitted a decided case of this Court in the matter of Sakun Bai vs. Satyanarayan reported in 1980 (11) MPWN 239 but the same is distinguishable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand. 12. It is an undisputed fact that applicant has kept another woman in his family as his wife. Although, under the personal law she cannot be said to be wife of the applicant, but in any circumstance, applicant is residing with other woman from whom he got five children also and as per provision of section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, this itself is a ground in favour of the non-applicant for claiming maintenance from applicant. 13. In view of the aforesaid premises, I find no perversity or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order and, therefore, the same is hereby maintained and this revision is dismissed.