JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioner against the judgment and order dated 24.05.2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kokrajhar in Misc. Case No. 4/2006 granting maintenance allowance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent w.e.f. the date of the application. 2. None appears for the petitioner on repeated calls. Mr. DP Sahu, learned counsel appears for the respondent. 3. The case of the respondent, Smti. Jayantipriya Pathak, in the proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.PC before the learned Trial Court is that she was married to the present petitioner on 20.01.1997 and they were living together as husband and wife, and out of the wedlock, a son was born who was 10 years of age at the time of filing of the application. The opposite party, herein, was subjected to torture by the present petitioner and on 03.06.2003, at about 6 pm., she was driven out by the present petitioner who was drunken at that moment. Since then, the opposite party is taking shelter in her parental house. 4. The present petitioner as respondent filed written statement, contending, inter alia, that the opposite party was indulging in adultery having extra marital relationship with one Sanat Kr. Das, her Music Teacher. On 26.10.2002, his mother caught both the respondent and her music teacher in a compromising state in their drawing room, and thereafter, a divorce suit has also been filed by the present petitioner against the respondent. 5. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court and have also perused the evidence on record. 6. The respondent herein is the wife of the present petitioner is an admitted position. Although the petitioner denied that, he subjected the respondent to torture and also driven her out of his house, yet he has taken the plea of adultery by his wife/respondent. 7. The respondent has, in his evidence as DW1, stated that the respondent was found in a compromising state with her Music Teacher in the house of his father-in-law by her mother-in-law. So, it appears from the claim and counter-claim of both the parties, before the learned Trial Court, that the basic ground taken by the present petitioner was that his wife/respondent was indulged in adultery. 8. So, it appears from the claim and counter-claim of both the parties, before the learned Trial Court, that the basic ground taken by the present petitioner was that his wife/respondent was indulged in adultery. 8. But, what is interesting is that mother of the petitioner herein was never examined and rather DW1, DW2 and DW3 were examined to prove adultery of the respondent. 9. DW2 stated that once he came to the house of the respondent, he saw the door locked from inside and music was being played inside the house with loud sound while the son of the petitioner and the respondent was playing outside the house. When enquired by him, the little boy said that his mother was learning music from her Music Teacher in the drawing room. He then peeped through the hole of the door but he saw both of them in the drawing room in a compromising state. 10. But, this was not the case of the present petitioner. He never said, as DW1, that the DW2 saw his wife and her Music Teacher in a compromising state. 11. The interesting twist is noticed in the evidence of DW3. While DW2 is found to have deposed in his evidence, that DW3 was also with him while he saw the respondent with the Music Teacher in compromising state. But, DW3 stated in his evidence that he was never with DW2 at the relevant point of time. He only heard about the occurrence from the mother of the DW1. 12. Therefore, the inconsistent evidence of DW1, DW2 and DW3 cannot be said to be reliable considering the nature of imputation of adultery on the respondent. 13. Apart from that, the law of adultery as per the decision of our High Court in the case of Abdul Sattar Vs. State of Assam and Anr., reported in 2008 (4) GLT 838 is that so far the marriage between the parties exist, the husband cannot refuse to maintain his wife and also the fact that the incident of adultery cannot disentitle the wife from getting maintenance. 14. But the facts remain that in the instant case, the petitioner as opposite party in the maintenance proceeding failed to establish the plea of adultery as stated above. 15. 14. But the facts remain that in the instant case, the petitioner as opposite party in the maintenance proceeding failed to establish the plea of adultery as stated above. 15. That being so, on the basis of the evidence on record, and the failure of the petitioner to proof adultery of his wife, i.e., the respondent herein, is entitled to maintenance. 16. So far the amount of maintenance is concerned, as per the evidence on record, the petitioner was an employ of Public Health Engineering Department and his salary was Rs. 8,000/- per month. When the judgment was delivered by the learned Trial Court, Rs. 1,000/- was granted as maintenance to the respondent herein, and that being so, there is no issue raised on the amount of maintenance allowance granted to the respondent. 17. A plea was taken by the revision petitioner that, in the divorce proceeding between the parties, the present respondent is receiving an amount of Rs. 800/- as maintenance. The law on that point has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudeep Chaudhary Vs. Radha Chaudhary, reported in (1997) 11 SCC 286 . Para 6 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:- “We are of the view that the High Court was in error. The amount awarded under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance was adjustable against the amount awarded in the matrimonial proceedings and was not to be given over and above the same. In the absence of the wife, we are, however not inclined to go into any detailed discussion of the law.” 18. Therefore, if the respondent is getting some amount as maintenance in the divorce proceeding that should be adjusted in the maintenance proceeding which is under challenge before this Court in this Criminal Revision Petition. 19. The judgment, impugned in this Criminal Revision Petition, appears to have been authored based on proper appreciation of evidence and no illegality and impropriety could be found there. Therefore, no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional power is called for. 20. With the above observation, this present Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed. 21. Send down the LCR along with the copy of this judgment.