JUDGMENT:- The present petition is filed challenging the final judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Criminal Revision No.78 of 1991. The brief facts of the case are as under:2. The respondent wife filed Criminal Misc. Application No.249 of 1990 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani. In the said application she stated that the applicant Nos.2 and 3 therein are their children. The marriage between the petitioner-husband and the applicant took place on 18-5-1973 at Latur as per Hindu rites and customs. They started their marital life. After six months of the marital life they were leading happy life. The petitioner husband was serving in Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth Parbhani as a carpenter in Engineering Department as a permanent employee and they shifted to Parbhani. 3. It is further stated in the said application that the petitioner was addicted towards vices like womanising and gambling prior to 4 to 5 years of the filing of the application and started ill-treating the applicant wife. The husband also developed an interest towards the Tamasha and at women and he is abundant person and left them the mercy of at God and even he was not visiting the house and totally neglected wife and children. She further stated in the application that the children are school going children. She is unable to maintain them and the husband is getting Rs.2200/- p.m. at the relevant time towards the salary. It was further stated that the husband is in a position to pay maintenance of Rs.500/- to the respondent-wife as well as the Rs.500/- each to the children. 4. The petitioner-husband filed his reply to the said application at Exh.14. He denied the contention raised in the application. He stated in his written statement that the female child has not died because of natural death and submitted that the said child was constrained to commit suicide by the wife only due to miss-behaviour of the wife. The husband also denied the contention about his addiction towards vices and ill-treatment on that account to the wife. He stated in the written statement that applicant herself is having bad habits, which are not excusable. He several times tried to correct the wife, however, she did not improve her behaviour. The husband also denied the contention about his addiction towards vices and ill-treatment on that account to the wife. He stated in the written statement that applicant herself is having bad habits, which are not excusable. He several times tried to correct the wife, however, she did not improve her behaviour. He stated in the written statement that the female child wrote a letter to him and specifically on 5-7-1987 requesting him to ask wife to behave properly. It is further stated by the husband that the applicant wife developed illicit relations with other persons. This fact is out of tolerance of a prudent man. He further alleged that on 15-7-1990 the applicant took Rs.500/- from a person Sukumar and she allowed him to have intercourse with her own daughter by accepting Rs.500/-. The said daughter did not like this act of the applicant wife but in spite of it and with the help of applicant-wife the said act was completed. The daughter could not tolerate the behaviour of the applicant-mother and she committed suicide. On 22-8-1990 the husband filed a complaint of the incident of the death of daughter with D.S.P. Parbhani. 5. The learned J.M.F.C. framed the points for determination and held that the applicant NO.1-wife is not entitled for maintenance and rejected her application. However, the application of the applicant Nos.2 and 3 was allowed. It was directed to the respondent husband to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.250/- p.m. to the applicant Nos.2 and 3 from the date of application i.e. from 1911-1990 onwards till they attain the majority. 6. The wife being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the J.M.F.C. refusing maintenance to her filed Criminal Revision No.78 of 1991 before the Sessions Judge Parbhani. The learned Sessions Judge Parbhani on 31-8-1995 allowed the Revision filed by the wife and directed the petitioner husband to pay maintenance of Rs.300/- p.m. to the wife. 7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31-8-1995 passed by the learned Find Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani this petition is filed by the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned J.M.F.C. has correctly recorded the findings that the daughter committed suicide due to immoral activities of the respondent-wife. 7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31-8-1995 passed by the learned Find Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani this petition is filed by the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned J.M.F.C. has correctly recorded the findings that the daughter committed suicide due to immoral activities of the respondent-wife. He further submitted that the respondent wife forced the daughter to indulge in sexual activities and accepted some amounts and forced the daughter to have sexual intercourse with the person from whom she accepted Rs.500/- and ultimately the daughter committed suicide due to behaviour of the mother. He further submitted that the petitioner never neglected and refused to maintain the wife. On the contrary, the behaviour of the wife was totally immoral. He further submitted that the wife herself indulged in adulterous life. This case is covered under sub-section (4) of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. He submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. was perfectly justified. He further submitted that the present petitioner is retired from service and he is not in a position to pay maintenance amount to the respondent-wife. 9. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent-wife submitted that the reasons recorded by the learned J.M.F.C. to refuse maintenance amount to the wife were absolutely incorrect findings. The wife never indulged herself in immoral activities. The husband himself was addicted to so many things and he was involved in immoral activities. He made the life of the applicant as well as the children miserable by in indulging himself into the bad habits. He totally neglected the wife and children and they were• forced to go out from the house. To cover up his own case the husband is making wild allegations without any proof. 10. It is further submitted that the husband has not proved that the wife is continuously living in adulterous life. The alleged suicide note which was written by the daughter was not sent to any handwriting expert to come to the conclusion that the applicant-wife forced the daughter to indulge in sexual activities and forced her to have intercourse with the person from whom she accepted the money. The advocate for the respondent wife vehemently submitted that the order passed by the Revisional Court is after proper appreciation of evidence and therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. The advocate for the respondent wife vehemently submitted that the order passed by the Revisional Court is after proper appreciation of evidence and therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. She further submitted that fresh Misc. application No.69 of 2002 was filed before the learned J.M.F.C. Parbhani for enhancement of maintenance by the respondent wife and after taking into consideration the entire material on record the learned J.M.F.C. has directed the petitioner-husband to pay Rs.1,500/ - towards the maintenance to the wife instead of Rs.300/-. Therefore, she submitted that in view of the judgment and order dated 8-6-2004 passed by the J.M.F.C. at Parbhani enhancing the amount of maintenance, this petition has become infructuous. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the amount of compensation he should file the fresh proceeding challenging the judgment and order passed by the J.M.F.C, in Misc. Application No.69 of 2002. The advocate for the respondent-wife has made available the certified copy of the judgment and order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Parbhani in Misc. Application No.69 of 2002. 11. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. The learned J.M.F.C. has recorded a finding that the daughter wrote letter to her father and specifically on 5-7-1987 had requested him to ask the wife to behave properly. The learned I.M.F.C. has also recorded that the applicant wife has no right to claim maintaince from the husband as she is residing separate y of her own accord from him. She is living in doughter and therefore, she is not entitled to claim even maintenance. The learned I.M.F.C. has referred to the deposition of the husband on oatb in which he stated that the letter which is at Exh.23 written by the daughter is in her own handwriting and therefore, the burden was on the applicant wife to prove handwriting. The learned I.M.F.C. has believed the contents of the letter. Since the daughter committed suicide, it is observed by the learned I.M.F.C. that she should have proved the letter, however, since she is not alive there is no option but to believe the statement of the husband that the letter was written by the daughter in her own handwriting. In the result the learned I.M.F.C. has held that due to miss-behaviour and adulterous life of the applicant-wife she is not entitled for maintenance. 12. In the result the learned I.M.F.C. has held that due to miss-behaviour and adulterous life of the applicant-wife she is not entitled for maintenance. 12. While recording the findings about the income of the husband the learned I.M.F.C. came to the conclusion that so far as the maintenance amount to the applicant Nos.2 and 3, who are the children and they are not able to maintain themselves and therefore, the petitioner husband can pay maintenance to them. The learned 1.M.F.e. accordingly rejected the application of the wife and allowed the application for applicant Nos.2 and 3. 13. The Revisional Court has recorded in para 9 of the judgment that no doubt by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. if the wife is leading adulterous life or living in adultery, is not entitled for maintenance. He further observed that no circumstances brought I on record to show that wife had occasion to r, have contact with the other persons. Even a single act of sexual intercourse is not adultery, but the words contemplated by the Section b 'living in adultery means continuous illicit n relations or sexual relations by a lady with other person or extra marital relations with third person. The Revisional Court recorded the findings against the husband. As far as the I contents ofExh.23, a note alleged to have been written by the daughter in her own handwriting of which this Court cannot take cognizance. The Revisional Court has further recorded the findings that the reply filed coupled with the evidence adduced by the husband charging his wife with immoral life. Attributing to immoral life to wife itself shows neglect or cruelty on the part of the husband it is tantamount of to neglect the wife and therefore, the wife is entitled for maintenance. 14. After going through the entire evidence on record as well as after going through the findings recorded by the learned J.M.F.C. it is clear that the J.M.F.C. has come to the conclusion that wife is leading an adulterous life and therefore, she is not entitled to claim separate maintenance. 15. The onus to prove that the wife is living in adultery is on the husband. The wife is not entitled to claim separate maintenance on three grounds. 15. The onus to prove that the wife is living in adultery is on the husband. The wife is not entitled to claim separate maintenance on three grounds. a) if she is living in adultery; b) if she has left the matrimonial house without sufficient reason; c) refused to live with her husband or if they are separated by mutual consent. For this purpose it is pertinent to refer subsection (4) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. "125(4): No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent." In the present case, the learned J.M.F.C. has relied on the alleged suicide note by the daughter and only the statement of the husband and came to the conclusion that the suicide note is written by the daughter. Apart from the alleged suicide note submitted by the husband there was nothing on record by way of evidence produced by the husband to establish the fact that the wife was continuously living in adulterous life. Mere allegation by the husband and alleged suicide note would not prove the fact that the wife is living in adulterous life. What is required is that she is living in adultery. The expression "living in adultery" is purposefully used to indicate that an isolated act is not sufficient. A consistent conduct and living in permanent and quasi-permanent adulterous relationship with the paramour has to be proved. A mere stay or single lapse on the part of the wife is not sufficient to bring her conduct within the meaning of "living in provided in Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It should be a continuous course of adulterous conduct". The onus of proof in such cases would be on the husband who asserts that wife is leading adulterous life. Therefore, in my view the evidence led by the husband does not prove that the wife was living in adultery. 16. In the result, the judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court was perfectly justifiable and the same is confirmed. The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. Therefore, in my view the evidence led by the husband does not prove that the wife was living in adultery. 16. In the result, the judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court was perfectly justifiable and the same is confirmed. The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. The interim order dated 3-7-1998 by this Court directing the petitioner husband to pay monthly Rs.200- towards maintenance is vacated and petitioner-husband is directed to pay Rs.300/p.m. to the respondent-wife as directed by the Revisional Court. If there are any arrears towards the maintenance the same should be paid to the wife within a month from today. Petition dismissed.