ORDER 1. Applicant (wife) has filed this revision against the order dated 14.1.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandla in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1/2004, dismissing her application for maintenance filed against the respondent (husband) under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Case of the applicant is that she was married to the respondent on 13.5.1962. After marriage, she continued to live with her husband till 1969. Thereafter, she fell seriously ill, therefore, her father took her and got her treated in the hospital. According to her, respondent did not care for her treatment and also demanded Rs. 20,000/- from her. Since the year 1969, she resided at her father's house. Since her father died and her brothers were able to look after only their families and she had no sufficient means of herself for maintenance, she filed an application for maintenance in the year 1989, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 24.4.1995. She then filed the present application on 3.5.2000. According to the applicant, her daughter Anita continued to live with the respondent. Respondent performed her marriage without her consent and without informing her and he too married again-another woman. The respondent was posted as Chemist in the Bhilai Steel Plant and was getting Rs. 20,000/- per month, therefore, she was entitled to receive maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month from him. 3. In reply, the respondent stated that false and baseless allegations were made against him after about 21 years of the marriage. Applicant had given birth to a female child. She was not subjected to any harassment or cruelty. For last several years, no complaint was made by her against him. In the year 1968 she suffered with typhoid. He got her treated, but she suffered with excessive weakness. When her parents were informed about her weakness, they took her with them without informing him, in his absence. When respondent approached to them, they insulted him and did not send the applicant back to his house and did not permit him to meet her. Since the year 1968, the applicant did not care to come back to his house and even did not care for her minor daughter. She did not even write a letter to him for last 21 years. Since the year 1968, the applicant did not care to come back to his house and even did not care for her minor daughter. She did not even write a letter to him for last 21 years. According to him, the applicant's parents and brothers were rich people having agricultural land and houses in Mandla and Bichiya. They all were earning by rent of the property. Since the applicant did not return for a long time, he was compelled to keep a woman Sangita as wife to look after minor daughter Anita. In the course of time, Sangita also gave birth to two sons and a daughter. After 33 years of service in Bhilai Steel Plant, he got retired. After retirement, in all, he got about Rs. 1.75 Lac. He was not getting any regular pension. 4. Considering the evidence led by both the parties, learned Magistrate held that it was not established that the applicant was unable to maintain herself. The conduct of the applicant in filing the application for maintenance after about 21 years and not even caring to look after her daughter whom she had left at the house of her husband, was enough to establish that she lived separate voluntarily without any sufficient cause. It was also found that the respondent retired in the year 1998 and that he was getting no pension. The fund, which he received on his retirement was spent by him on marriage of his daughter Anita. At the age of about 65 years, in the circumstances of the case, it was not possible to presume that the respondent who retired in the year 1998 had sufficient means to maintain the applicant. Eventually, learned Magistrate dismissed the application. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that merely because t application for maintenance was filed after about 21 years, it cannot dismissed on that count. Since at the time of moving the application 1 applicant was unable to maintain herself, she was entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. She submits that the respondent t kept another woman, therefore, the applicant had sufficient reason live separate from him. She further submits that the respondent was getting pension from the Bhilai Steel Plant, therefore, it cannot be held that had no sufficient means to pay maintenance to the applicant. 6. She submits that the respondent t kept another woman, therefore, the applicant had sufficient reason live separate from him. She further submits that the respondent was getting pension from the Bhilai Steel Plant, therefore, it cannot be held that had no sufficient means to pay maintenance to the applicant. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits t the conduct of the applicant in abandoning her house and desert respondent for about 30 years, disentitled her to receive any maintenance. He submits that it has not been proved by the applicant that the respond was getting any amount by way of pension. Since the respondent file the certificate to prove that he retired on 31.7.1998 and that he receive only Rs. 1.75 Lac from the department which he spent on marriage of daughter Anita, the trial Court rightly held that he had no sufficient me to pay maintenance to the applicant. 7. I have heard the submissions made by the counsel of both the si and perused the record. 8. It is on record that since the year 1969, the applicant was residing at the house of her parents. 'She did not go to her husband's house; did not take care of her minor daughter whom she had left with husband. There is absolutely no material on record to indicate that even made any attempt or expressed her willingness to go to her husbands house to live with him. It is true that merely on the ground of delay in filing the application for maintenance under section 125 of the Code Criminal Procedure, the relief cannot be refused if the wife appeared be otherwise entitled for maintenance, but in the present case, circumstances show that she deserted the respondent-husband without any justification. 9. Though it was admitted by the respondent that he kept another woman as wife, but according to him it was for looking after and bringing up his daughter Anita. In Kurma Pullamma v. Kurma Thatalingam Q Raju, AIR 1945 Madras 44, it was held that the mere fact that the husband took a second wife, that too after waiting for several years and after first wife refused to join him, cannot be said to amount to cruelty. In State v. Mt. In Kurma Pullamma v. Kurma Thatalingam Q Raju, AIR 1945 Madras 44, it was held that the mere fact that the husband took a second wife, that too after waiting for several years and after first wife refused to join him, cannot be said to amount to cruelty. In State v. Mt. Anwarbi and others, AIR 1953 Nagpur 133, it was held "The mere fact that a husband has married again does not entitle the' to maintenance, although, as shown it has to be regarded as just ground for her refusal to live with him. The refusal or neglect to main constitutes the basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by a Court under S. 488, Criminal P.C.; and in this case, Anwarbi had undoubtedly failed to prove such refusal or neglect on her husband's part. In short, she is justified in not living with him since his remarriage; but in virtue of her failure to show that he had neglected or refused to maintain her, she was not entitled to separate maintenance." In Sayabai v. Gullu [2001 (II) MPWN 194], it was found that it was the wife alone who refused to live with him without any justification. It was not a case where on account of any second marriage contracted by her husband, she was justified in her refusal to live with him. Even as per the allegation of wife, the second marriage was contracted much later. The facts of the case were, therefore, similar to the facts of the case of Kamla Bai v. Gajanand [ 1984 MPWN 170 ] in which the claim for maintenance in similar circumstances was rejected. The case is clearly one where the wife had voluntarily withdrawn from the company of her husband without any reasonable cause and therefore, she was not entitled to claim maintenance. 10. In the present case also, it is apparent that the respondent kept another woman after a long time, after waiting for return of the applicant. The applicant did not make any effort to go back to the house of her husband and continued to live at her parent's house. In such circumstances, the trial Court rightly found the applicant not entitled for receiving maintenance from the respondent. 11. The applicant did not make any effort to go back to the house of her husband and continued to live at her parent's house. In such circumstances, the trial Court rightly found the applicant not entitled for receiving maintenance from the respondent. 11. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [ 2008 (2) JLJ 70 = (2008) DMC 22 (SC)], it was held that under the law the burden is placed in the first place upon the wife to show that the means of her husband are sufficient. In the present case, from the evidence of the respondent it is revealed that he retired in the year 1998. According to him, no monthly pension was paid to the employees of the Bhilai Steel Plant. He, in some installments, received Rs. 1.75 Lac, but he spent that amount for the marriage of daughter of the applicant, who was living with him. Besides that, he also performed the marriage of his another daughter Arati, born to second wife. At the time of passing the impugned order, the age of respondent, in the estimation of the Court, was not less than 65 years and there was nothing on record to show that he had sufficient means to maintain the applicant. He himself was dependent on his sons born to the second wife. 12. In the above circumstances, the trial Court rightly held that the applicant was not entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. Thus, no ground is made out requiring any interference in the impugned order. This revision is, therefore, dismissed.