JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Banik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. leveling allegation against the respondent that the respondent treated her with severe torture and had thrown her out of the matrimonial home. Confronted with such situation, she had been compelled to live separately at her paternal home but the respondent did not maintain them at any point of time, even on asking, the respondent refused to maintain them. 3. The respondent however while counter-acting such allegations has stated that the petitioner No.1 had illicit relation with her grandfather and the respondent herein has himself witnessed such act on one day. Though in the deposition the respondent (OPW1) had stated that the petitioner had continued such relation but no elaboration was thereon what was the basis of such statement. Even the other OPWs did not support the statement of continuation of such relation which may broadly be termed as ‘adultery’. 4. The family court after appreciating the evidence as available with the records directed the respondent to pay maintenance to the extent of Rs. 1000/- per month only to the petitioner No. 2 herein but denied the petitioner No.1 granting any maintenance on the reason as noted under : “7. On analyzing evidence of both the parties the fact of torture comes out. It is also transpired from the evidence and W.O. of the O.P. that the petitioner has illicit relation with her Dadu namely Rangahari Pal. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has been living in her father’s house. It is also admitted fact that the O.P. did not paying any maintenance allowance to the petitioner and also to her minor child. The O.P. being father is definitely under obligation to pay maintenance allowance to the minor child but not to his wife as she has left her matrimonial home without any cogent ground.” The said finding has been questioned by this petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. 5. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the said judgment dated 24.06.2015 delivered in Case No. Cr. 5. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the said judgment dated 24.06.2015 delivered in Case No. Cr. Misc./FC/UDP/50/2015 cannot be sustained inasmuch as even if it is assumed that there was one act of adultery that is not sufficient to take away the right to get maintenance as provided under Section 125(1) of the Cr.P.C. He has relied on a decision of this court in Prembala Das versus Laxmi charan Das reported in (2012)5 GLR 538 where this court has observed that interpretation of “living in adultery” cannot be based on one act or slip of conduct of having illicit relation. “Living in adultery” within the meaning of Sub-section 4 of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be tantamount to committing adultery in one occasion, such act cannot forfeit the claim for maintenance under Section 125(1) of the Cr.P.C. In Prembala Das (supra) this court has surveyed the several decisions of the various high courts while arriving at that reasoning. 6. Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the respondent is not inclined to live with the petitioner No.1 as he himself has witnessed the said adulterous act. Mr. Pal, learned counsel has quite robustly submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Family Court and this court may not interfere with it. 7. In order to appreciate the submission made by the learned counsel, this court has scrutinized the entire evidence afresh. After scrutinizing the records, what has appeared is that the petitioner No.1 appeared in the inquiry by the Judge, Family Court and deposed there. But regarding the incidence of adultery, the petitioner (PW1) was not even confronted. However in the written objection filed by the respondent he has categorically stated that the petitioner was living an adulterous life so far as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned there is evidence of one act, but it has not been mentioned when it occurred. There is no specific reference of continuance of such conduct by the petitioner. 8. However in the written objection filed by the respondent he has categorically stated that the petitioner was living an adulterous life so far as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned there is evidence of one act, but it has not been mentioned when it occurred. There is no specific reference of continuance of such conduct by the petitioner. 8. Having regard to the earlier decision of this court Prembala Das (supra), this court is of the view that even if it is assumed that there was one act as alleged by the petitioner, that cannot forfeit the claim of the petitioner No.1 to have the maintenance and accordingly, this court is inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 24.06.2015 so far it is concerned with the petitioner No.1. The denial of maintenance to the petitioner No.1 is therefore set aside. 9. The respondent is directed to pay Rs. 1000/- as maintenance allowance every month to the petitioner No.1, in addition to Rs. 1000/- as directed to be paid by the family court to the petitioner No.2 within 10th day of every English calendar month. The maintenance to the petitioner No.2 shall be paid in terms of the impugned judgment from 24.06.2015 whereas the maintenance shall be paid to the petitioner No.1 from 01.11.2016 which will be payable within 10.12.2016 and the respondent shall continue to pay the maintenance to both the petitioner in the said manner as indicated above. 10. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has made an allegation that the respondent has not paid any maintenance allowance. The petitioner No.2 despite the impugned order dated 24.06.2015 has not received any sum. If the maintenance allowance has not been paid in terms of the impugned judgment dated 24.06.2015 by the respondent, the petitioners shall be at liberty to proceed for recovery and when such petition for realization would be made in the Family Court, Udaipur, South Tripura, the Family Court shall be rigid for recovery of the said amount . 11. With these observation and direction this Crl.Rev. petition stands allowed and disposed of.