JUDGMENT:- Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, petition is heard finally. 2. This proceeding is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli given in Revision No.25/10. The Sessions Court has set aside the order of maintenance made in favour of petitioner no.1 by JMFC and the maintenance amount awarded to petitioner no.2 is reduced by Sessions Court. 3. It is not disputed that petitioner no. 1 is the wife of respondent no. 1 and petitioner no.2 is son born to petitioner no.1 from respondent no.1. Criminal Application no.155/08 was filed by petitioners u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. They had contended that they were driven out of house by present respondent and no provision for maintenance was made by respondent. As they had contended that they have no source of income and they are unable to maintain themselves, and as the respondent no. 1 failed to prove offence of adultery, the maintenance was granted in favour of both the petitioners by JMFC. The Sessions Court has set aside the order made in favour of wife by holding that the evidence on record is sufficient to prove that the wife was living in adultery. The maintenance amount granted to petitioner no.2 is reduced by holding that present respondent no. 1 has no source of income and he is earning livelihood by virtually begging. 4. This Court has gone through the evidence given in defence by respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1 has examined his son who was aged about 15 years to prove the adultery. Respondent no.1 has given evidence of one specific incident on the basis of which he inferred that his wife was living adulterous life. The evidence given by the son of respondent no. 1 is very vague in nature. He did not refer to specific incident of adultery referred by respondent no. 1. The evidence of respondent no. 1 shows that on one occasion, when he returned home, he noticed that one person was sleeping in the room of his wife and he ran away after seeing respondent no. 1. The date of the incident is given as 12/10/2007 and it is the case of respondent no. 1 that he gave report in respect of the incident to police on 30/11/2007. He had filed Criminal Case No. 718/2007 in respondent of the said incident. 1. The date of the incident is given as 12/10/2007 and it is the case of respondent no. 1 that he gave report in respect of the incident to police on 30/11/2007. He had filed Criminal Case No. 718/2007 in respondent of the said incident. In the criminal case, wife came to be acquitted. 5. The say given to maintenance proceeding by respondent no. 1 shows that at para no.13, he contended that the wife was living with her parents and she had left his company on her own and so she is not entitled to receive any maintenance. He had also contended that the wife was living adulterous life. In the evidence also, respondent no.1 contended that he had made attempts to bring the wife back to matrimonial house but she refused to return. He denied that he had deserted the wife for any reason. Thus, two contrary defenses were taken by the husband. This circumstance it self is sufficient to presume that there is no force in the defence of adultery taken by the husband. In any case, there is inconsistency in the evidence given by husband and the son. For the petitioner, reliance was placed on observations made by this Court in case reported in 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 3463 [Sambhaji B. Wadajkar V/s Parvatibai and another), Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court. This Court has discussed term "living in adultery" and this Court has also discussed burden of proof in this regard. There cannot be any dispute over the proposition made in this case. This Court has no hesitation to hold that there is no proof of adultery and evidence is not sufficient to prove that the wife was "living in adultery" as required to prove defence of adultery in Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Thus, the Sessions Court has committed error in setting aside decision given by JMFC in favour of petitioner no.1, wife. 6. The Sessions Court has reduced the maintenance awarded to petitioner no.2 by making some observations with regard to income of respondent no.1. The evidence shows that respondent no.1 has only a house and probably he is required to solicit alms for livelihood. In these circumstances, this Court holds that there is no need to interfere in the order of quantum of maintenance made in favour of petitioner no.2. The evidence shows that respondent no.1 has only a house and probably he is required to solicit alms for livelihood. In these circumstances, this Court holds that there is no need to interfere in the order of quantum of maintenance made in favour of petitioner no.2. After few years, respondent no.1 will not be required to pay maintenance to petitioner no.2. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that petitioner no. 1 is entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs.1 000/- per month. So, the following order. 7. Petition is allowed. Judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli delivered in Revision No.25/10 in respect of petitioner Renukabai is hereby set aside. The order made by JMFC in Criminal Application No.155/08 in her favour is restored. However, the order modified by Sessions Court in respect of original applicant no.2 modifying maintenance and awarding it at the rate of Rs.600/- p.m. is maintained. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. Ordered accordingly.