Judgment ( 1. ) THE applicant/husband has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code feeling aggrieved by the order dated 28. 4. 2006 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Criminal Revision No. 191/2005 whereby learned Revisional Court has set aside the impugned order dated 29. 7. 2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Alot, District Ratlam in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 39/2000 for rejection of the petition filed by the non-applicant for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and granted the maintenance amount of Rs. 800 per month in favour of the non-applicant along with the cost of Rs. 1,000 against the applicant. ( 2. ) BRIEF facts of the case are that non-applicant filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of maintenance before Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Alot. Learned trial Magistrate, after due appreciation of the entire evidence produced by both the parties, vide impugned order dated 29. 7. 2005 dismissed the aforesaid petition for grant of maintenance on the ground that the non-applicant/wife is living separately at her own will and, therefore, not entitled to get any maintenance from her husband. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, non-applicant/wife filed Criminal Revision No. 191/2005 before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam. After hearing both the parties, learned Revisional Court by order dated 28. 4. 2006 allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Magistrate and granted Rs. 800 per month as maintenance amount and also awarded cost of Rs. 1,000 of both the Courts against the present applicant/husband. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Revisional Court, the applicant has approached this Court by this revision petition. ( 3. ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant Mr. S. R. Saraf, Advocate and learned Counsel for the non-applicant Mr. Z. A. Khan, Senior Advocate and perused the record. ( 4. ) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that learned Revisional Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence recorded before the Trial Magistrate, wrongly held that the present applicant/husband has contracted second Natra marriage with some other lady. Z. A. Khan, Senior Advocate and perused the record. ( 4. ) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that learned Revisional Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence recorded before the Trial Magistrate, wrongly held that the present applicant/husband has contracted second Natra marriage with some other lady. It is also on record that original applicant/wife is living separately at her own consent and she only wants her rights on the property of her husband and with this intention she had filed the aforesaid petition for grant of maintenance. On the basis of this admission, learned Trial Magistrate has rightly dismissed the petition for grant of maintenance filed by non-applicant/wife and learned Revisional Court has wrongly allowed the revision petition and granted the aforesaid order of maintenance in favour of the non-applicant. In view of that, learned Counsel for the applicant prayed for setting aside of the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court in favour of the non-applicant. ( 5. ) IN reply, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicant/original applicant submits that learned Revisional Court after proper appreciation of the evidence led by both the parties rightly came to the conclusion that as husband has contracted second marriage, then this will be the sufficient reason for original applicant/wife to live separately and also claim maintenance amount from her husband and on the basis of this proposition of law, Revisional Court has rightly granted the maintenance amount in favour of the non-applicant/original applicant/ wife and no valid or substantial grounds are available for any interference in the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the present revision petition. ( 6. ) THE crucial point for determination before this Court is "as to whether non-applicant/original applicant is entitled to get maintenance amount from her husband as her husband has contracted second marriage with some other lady?" ( 7. ) IT is provided in explanation of Second Proviso of Sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code that "if a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wifes refusal to live with him. ) IT is provided in explanation of Second Proviso of Sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code that "if a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wifes refusal to live with him. " In view of the aforesaid explanation provided under Section 125, Sub-section (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the present case also, it is the clear allegation of the non-applicant/wife that as her husband has contracted second marriage (Natra marriage) with some another lady, she is not ready to live with her husband and this is the just and sufficient reason for her to live separately from her husband. ( 8. ) ON the point of this second marriage, on perusal of the statement given by non-applicant/original applicant Lad Kunwar Bai (P. W. 1), she specifically stated that as she could not give birth to any child, her husband/present applicant has treated her with cruelty and told her that she could not live with him and also ousted her from his home. Similarly, her mother-in-law Dhulibai also beaten her and told her to leave her house. Then she went to her parental house at village Bhojakhedi and living there with her father. After some time, her husband/present applicant has contracted second Natra marriage with some other lady. ( 9. ) IT is true that she was not present at the time of so-called marriage of her husband, but this fact has been properly proved by the statement of Balaram (P. W. 2) who clearly stated that the present applicant/husband has contracted second Natra marriage with some other lady and they are living together as husband and wife. This fact has also been proved by the statement of third witness Rasheed (P. W. 3) also. ( 10. ) IT is true that present applicant Mohanlal (D. W. 1) has denied with regard to the second marriage, but he admitted in cross-examination that he is also facing a criminal trial for contracting second marriage in the life-time of his first wife, which is still pending before the competent Court. ( 11. ( 10. ) IT is true that present applicant Mohanlal (D. W. 1) has denied with regard to the second marriage, but he admitted in cross-examination that he is also facing a criminal trial for contracting second marriage in the life-time of his first wife, which is still pending before the competent Court. ( 11. ) IN view of the aforesaid evidence on record, Revisional Court came to the conclusion that it is true that the husband/present applicant Mohanlal has contracted second Natra marriage with some other lady and for this reason as per Explanation to Sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, wife is entitled to live separately and also entitled to get maintenance amount from her husband. ( 12. ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant stressed upon the fact and admission of the non-applicant/wife in her statement recorded before the Trial Court and in cross-examination in paragraph 10 she admitted that she still ready to live with her husband, but before that she wants that some property should be transferred in her name then only she will be ready to live with him. She wants that 7 big has of land and house should be transferred in her name. By this admission, learned Counsel for the applicant stressed upon the fact that the intention for filing of this petition for grant of maintenance is only to extract the property from her husband. In my opinion, the aforesaid argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant does not have much force. This happened to be an alternative offer of the wife that either her husband should pay monthly maintenance amount to her or some property may be transferred in her name so that she can maintain herself by the income of the aforesaid property. By this offer, her intention for extracting any property from her husband cannot be gathered or inferred. ( 13. ) IN view of the aforesaid evidence on record, in my considered opinion, learned Revisional Court has rightly allowed the petition for grant of maintenance which has been wrongly dismissed by the trial Magistrate. Learned Revisional Court has granted Rs. 800 per month as maintenance amount and Rs. 1,000 as cost of this case. In view of the property which the present applicant was having in his name, maintenance amount of Rs. 800 per month does not appear to be excessive. ( 14. Learned Revisional Court has granted Rs. 800 per month as maintenance amount and Rs. 1,000 as cost of this case. In view of the property which the present applicant was having in his name, maintenance amount of Rs. 800 per month does not appear to be excessive. ( 14. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, no illegality or irregularity is on record on which basis the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court may be interfered with. ( 15. ) RESULTANTLY, this revision petition being devoid of any merits is dismissed accordingly.