ORDER : The petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) filed by the present petitioner against the present respondent in Crl.Misc.No.37/2007, in the Court of the learned III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Family Court”), seeking monthly maintenance at Rs.5,000/-per month, came to be dismissed by the order of the Family Court dated 28-04-2016. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. 2. The summary of the case of the petitioner in the Family Court was that, she is the legally wedded wife of the present respondent, whose marriage was performed on 31-08-1994 at a place called Kanakapura, as per the rites and customs prevailing in their community. The respondent, at the time of marriage, was working as Police Constable in Yeshawanthapura Police Station at Bengaluru and was getting a salary of Rs.9,525/-per month. Apart from this, he was also getting rental income from the house properties. It is her allegation that, the respondent was not maintaining her properly and was not providing food, clothing, shelter and medicines and therefore, she could not live with him from August 2006. The respondent also tortured her and ill-treated her, however, she tolerated the same with a hope that he would mend his ways and behave well one day or the other. But all her hopes went in vain. She also stated that he was also not regular in coming to the home and from July 2006 onwards, he totally stopped from coming to home and from August 2006, he stopped showing any love or affection or care towards her (petitioner). With this, she stated that, she requires at least a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month for her basic necessities like food, clothing, shelter and medicines. 3. The respondent appeared through his counsel in the Family Court and filed his statement of objections, wherein he admitted his marital relationship with the petitioner and stated that after marriage, they lived together for a period of six months. However, he contended that, thereafter, the petitioner herself left the matrimonial home and went with one Sri. S. Robert, S/o. Selvaraj. In that regard, he had also lodged a complaint about the missing of his wife before the D.J. Halli Police Station, on 24-08-1995. However, he contended that, thereafter, the petitioner herself left the matrimonial home and went with one Sri. S. Robert, S/o. Selvaraj. In that regard, he had also lodged a complaint about the missing of his wife before the D.J. Halli Police Station, on 24-08-1995. His wife was traced by the said Police, before whom also, she disclosed that she had married the said Sri. S. Robert and entered into an agreement of marriage dated 05-09-1995 with him, as such, she is living with him. The respondent, however, admitted that, he is working as Police Constable at Yeshawanthapura Police Station. He denied that apart from salary, he has any other source of income including from the house properties. He also denied the petition averment that he was subjecting his wife (petitioner) to ill-treatment and was neglecting her in any manner. 4. In order to prove her case, the petitioner got herself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exhibits P-1 to P-16. The respondent got himself examined as RW-1 and got examined two more witnesses as RW-2 and RW-3 and got marked documents from Exhibits R-1 to R-18. 5. The respondent is being represented by his learned counsel. 6. The Family Court’s records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 7. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the Family Court’s records. 8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arise for my consideration in this petition is : “Whether the order under revision is perverse, illegal and erroneous, warranting interference at the hands of this Court?” 9. It is not in dispute that, the marriage between the present petitioner and respondent was performed on 31-08-1994 according to the custom prevailing in their community. It is also an admitted fact that, the respondent has been serving in the Karnataka Police Department and according to learned counsels from both side, as on date, he is serving as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. It is also not in dispute that, the petitioner and respondent are living separately since prior to the petitioner filing the Crl.Misc.37/2007 in the Family Court. It is in this background, the case of the petitioner is required to be analysed. 10. It is also not in dispute that, the petitioner and respondent are living separately since prior to the petitioner filing the Crl.Misc.37/2007 in the Family Court. It is in this background, the case of the petitioner is required to be analysed. 10. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Family Court dismissed the petition of the petitioner observing that she was living an adulterous life. It came to such an erroneous conclusion upon the inadequate materials and based on assumptions. It gave more emphasis on Ex.R-3 which is the alleged marriage agreement, without noticing that neither the same was proved in accordance with law nor one of the parties to the agreement was examined in the Court. He further submitted that it also failed to notice that the criminal complaint filed by the respondent against the present petitioner ended in Police filing a ‘B’ final report which was not challenged by the respondent. As such, the contention of the respondent that the petitioner had undergone a second marriage, was not proved. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent in his argument submitted that the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC against the respondent and also the present petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C in the Family Court. He submitted that the respondent, by leading cogent evidence has proved that, the petitioner has been leading an adulterous life, as such, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition of the petitioner. He submitted that, the statement of the very petitioner before the Police which has been recorded by RW2 would clearly go to show that, she was living in adultery with one Sri. S. Robert, as such, she is rightly not entitled for any maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. 12. The petitioner as PW-1 in her examination-in-chief reiterated the contentions taken up by her in her petition. She reiterated that though she was residing in her matrimonial home after her marriage with the respondent, but he was subjecting her to ill-treatment and totally stopped from coming to the said house from July 2006. She also stated that the respondent totally neglected her and deprived her of the basic necessities of life, viz. food, shelter and clothing. She reiterated that though she was residing in her matrimonial home after her marriage with the respondent, but he was subjecting her to ill-treatment and totally stopped from coming to the said house from July 2006. She also stated that the respondent totally neglected her and deprived her of the basic necessities of life, viz. food, shelter and clothing. She further stated that she has no source of income to maintain herself. On the other hand, her husband being working in a Police Department as a Police Constable is liable to maintain her. She further stated that all her efforts to live with her husband went in vain and did not yield any result. 13. In order to show that she also had filed a criminal case in C.C.No.14757/2007 against her husband, alleging cruelty meted by him against her, she had produced a certified copy of her deposition in the said case and got it marked at Ex.P-3. In order to show that her husband is working in Police Department and that she was prosecuting the case in C.C.No.14757/2007 and also had filed a complaint against her husband, where, after investigation, the Police had filed charge sheet, she produced the copy of the salary Certificate of her husband, the acknowledgement for having filed the Police complaint, copy of the deposition of one Sri. Venkatachalaiah in C.C.No.14757/2007, copy of deposition of one Kum. Sheela, copy of the charge sheet in Crime No.203/2006, order sheet in PCR No.253/2008, copy of report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. in the said PCR No.253/2008, and copy of the FIR in Crime No.384/2008 at Exs.P-1, P-2, P-5, P-6, P-9, P-10 and P-11 respectively. The respondent as his contention that, the petitioner was living in adultery with one Sri. S. Robert, made several suggestions in that regard to PW-1 in her cross-examination, however, she denied the truthfulness in those suggestions. It was also suggested to the witness that, on 25-08-1995, she had written a letter to one Mrs. Vijayakumari, the sister of the respondent, stating that, she (petitioner) married one Robert, however, the witness did not admit those documents. However, she admitted that her husband (respondent) had filed a criminal case against her alleged bigamy. 14. It was also suggested to the witness that, on 25-08-1995, she had written a letter to one Mrs. Vijayakumari, the sister of the respondent, stating that, she (petitioner) married one Robert, however, the witness did not admit those documents. However, she admitted that her husband (respondent) had filed a criminal case against her alleged bigamy. 14. The respondent, in his examination-in-chief, though admitted that the petitioner was married to him on 31-08-1994, but reiterated his contention that she has been living an adulterous life with one Sri. S. Robert and she herself has given a statement in that regard before the D.J. Halli Police on 24-08-1995. He produced a document calling it as an agreement between the petitioner and said Robert and got it marked as Ex.R-3. 15. The respondent also got examined one Sri. S.B. Muniyappa, a retired Sub-Inspector of Police, who stated that, the present respondent had lodged a complaint before him while he was working in the D.J. Halli Police as a Station House Officer, on 24-08-1995, alleging the missing of his wife (petitioner herein) which was registered in their Station Crime No.290/1995. He further stated that the alleged missing lady (petitioner herein) was traced and produced before him on 17-10-1995, whose statement he has recorded. He also stated that, the said lady (petitioner herein) produced before him an agreement as per Ex.R-3. The witness also identified a copy of the complaint registered by him at Ex.R-4 and copy of FIR at Ex.R-5. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he has not arrested or enquired the said Robert who is alleged to be the second husband of the petitioner herein. He could not even identify the petitioner herein in the Court. However, it was denied that, Ex.R-3 was either produced by the petitioner or it was executed by her. The respondent also got examined one Smt. B.V. Arathi, the Warden of State Home, Mahalakshmipuram, Bengaluru, who stated that, as per the register maintained in their office, one Smt. Sujatha, W/o. Prasanna Venkatesh was brought to their State Home on 17-10-1995 and she was produced before the Police on the next day. However, in her cross-examination, she stated that she had not joined the job as on 17-10-1995, as such, she has not seen the said lady. She could not even identify the petitioner in the Court. 16. However, in her cross-examination, she stated that she had not joined the job as on 17-10-1995, as such, she has not seen the said lady. She could not even identify the petitioner in the Court. 16. The above evidence and argument of the learned counsels for the parties would clearly go to show that, the relationship of petitioner and respondent as wife and husband and that since August 2006 they are residing separately, are admitted facts. But the only reason for the respondent in denying maintenance to his wife is her alleged living in adultery. In that regard, admittedly, the present respondent had filed a private complaint against the present petitioner in a competent Court in P.C.R.No.253/2008. As could be seen in Ex.P-9, the matter was referred to the Police for its investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., who, after investigation have filed ‘B’ final report as could be seen at Ex.P-10. They opined that though the material collected by them would go to show that the petitioner was shown to have written a letter to her sister-in-law – Smt. Vijayakumari, stating that, she had entered into an agreement of marriage with one Sri. S. Robert, but, finally concluded that the complaint lodged by the present respondent is a false complaint and that the matter is purely a matrimonial matter more akin to a civil dispute. Admittedly, the said ‘B’ final report has not been challenged by the present respondent. Therefore, his first attempt to prove the alleged bigamy by initiating appropriate criminal action against his wife (petitioner herein) has gone in vain. 17. The second contention taken up by the respondent as well the argument addressed by the learned counsel is that the petitioner has deserted the respondent and underwent a second marriage with one Sri. S. Robert and has been leading in adultery. In that regard, suggestions were made from respondent’s side to PW-1 in her cross-examination. However, the witness has denied the truthfulness in all those suggestions made to her. Apart from suggesting to PW-1 in her cross-examination, the respondent also got marked a document as Exhibit R-2, without confronting the contents of the said document to PW-1. In that regard, suggestions were made from respondent’s side to PW-1 in her cross-examination. However, the witness has denied the truthfulness in all those suggestions made to her. Apart from suggesting to PW-1 in her cross-examination, the respondent also got marked a document as Exhibit R-2, without confronting the contents of the said document to PW-1. Though the said document which is a photocopy of an alleged letter shown to have been written by the petitioner to her mother stating that, she had underwent a registered marriage with another person after she left her home, but admittedly, the contents of the said document were not confronted to PW-1. Merely her signature was confronted to her, which the said witness has not admitted as her signature. Therefore, mere production of the said Exhibit at R-2 would not take the case of the respondent any further. 18. The respondent in the cross-examination of PW-1 as well in his evidence has stated that, on 25-08-1995, PW-1 had written a letter to Vijayakumari, the sister of the respondent stating that, she (PW-1) had married one Robert and that she need not be searched by the respondent. However, PW-1, apart from denying the said suggestion, has also made denial suggestions to RW-1 in his cross-examination. Therefore, mere making such a suggestion to PW-1 would not act as a proof of the averment. Furthermore, when the respondent could able to examine two more witnesses on his behalf as RW-2 and RW-3, nothing had prevented him from examining his own sister, i.e. Smt. Vijayakumari and bringing from her mouth about the alleged letter said to have been written by the petitioner to her. No attempt was made by the respondent in that regard. As such also, the alleged contention that the petitioner had written a letter to Vijayakumari, disclosing her alleged marriage with Robert would not enure to the benefit of the respondent. 19. The respondent also contended that after he lodging a missing complaint with the D.J. Halli Police, alleging that the petitioner was found missing from his house and after alleged tracing of the petitioner by the said D.J. Halli Police, the petitioner had produced an agreement of marriage before D.J. Halli Police, stating that, she had married one Sri. S. Robert on 05-09-1995. S. Robert on 05-09-1995. He confronted the signature in the photocopy of the alleged document to the witness, which PW-1 has not admitted as her signature. Even with respect to this document also, the respondent did not confront the contents of the said document with PW-1. No doubt, RW-2 in his evidence has stated it was the petitioner who produced the said document before him, however, since his statement was denied in his cross-examination from the petitioner’s side, the mere say of RW-2 that the said document was produced by the petitioner, is not acceptable. Moreover, merely by looking at the document, which is titled as an agreement of marriage, shown to have been entered into between one Sri. S. Robert and the petitioner and sworn before a Notary, would not, by itself, constitute a valid marriage between the parties to the agreement. As such also, the contention of the respondent that the petitioner married one Sri. S.Robert and was living in adultery with him, is not acceptable. 20. Section 125 (4) of the Cr.P.C., no doubt, disentitles a woman living in adultery from claiming any maintenance from her husband. However, in order to deny an eligible wife from maintenance, a mere allegation that the wife was living in adultery, is not sufficient. The husband is required not only to take the plea that, his wife is living in adultery, but he has to prove it to the satisfaction of the Court that, his wife has been living in adultery. As such, a mere imagination or an honest belief by itself would not amount to or cannot be taken as proof of adultery to the satisfaction of the Court. The said view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Sri. Nagaraj Vs. Smt. Nirmala and another in R.P.F.C.No.92/2015 dated 24-02-2021. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in Jagadevi Vs. Aravind, in R.P.F.C.No.200056/2014 dated 27-03-2015 was pleased to hold that, the proof of adultery should be to such a standard quality that the Court should not suspect the materials placed before the Court. The evidence should be of sterling quality to come to a definite conclusion that petitioner has been living in adultery. Otherwise, the consequences would be very disastrous which may lead to a criminal liability of the petitioner for which she is punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 21. The evidence should be of sterling quality to come to a definite conclusion that petitioner has been living in adultery. Otherwise, the consequences would be very disastrous which may lead to a criminal liability of the petitioner for which she is punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 21. In the instant case, as already observed above, except making certain allegations and producing an alleged copy of a letter and an alleged agreement, the respondent could not prove that the petitioner has been living in adultery. The evidence of RW-2 and RW-3, in that regard, would be of no benefit to the respondent. Though the respondent could have summoned and examined his sister Vijayakumari and also cross-examined the addressee of the alleged letter at Exhibit R-2, but he has not made any effort in that regard. As such, mere placing certain documents without proving the contents of the same, by itself would not take the case of the respondent at his desired end. 22. However, the Family Court, without considering these aspects, merely by looking at the alleged letter at Exhibit R-2 and alleged agreement of marriage at Exhibit R-3 and relying upon the evidence of RW-2, jumped to a conclusion that, the petitioner has been living in adultery by undergoing a second marriage with one Sri. S. Robert. This led the Trial Court to pass an erroneous order, denying the petitioner, the maintenance claimed by her. Since the said order is now proved to be erroneous and perverse, the same deserves to be set aside. Since the petitioner has proved that it is because of the cruelty meted to her by her husband and he undergoing a second marriage with one Parvathamma, she had to leave the company of her husband and live separately, she is entitled for maintenance from her husband. 23. According to the complainant, as on the date of filing of the petition, which was in the year 2007, she was incurring expenditure of a sum of Rs.5,000/-for her maintenance per month. She has further stated that the respondent, apart from being working as a Police Constable, as on that year, has also been getting income from the house properties which houses he has got at Kaval Byrasandra and Malavalli. She has further stated that the respondent, apart from being working as a Police Constable, as on that year, has also been getting income from the house properties which houses he has got at Kaval Byrasandra and Malavalli. The respondent, though denied that, he is getting income from house properties, but has not denied that he is working in the Police Department. The respondent as RW-1, in his cross-examination in the year 2014, has stated that, as on the said year, his salary was Rs.30,000/-per month. According to the learned counsels from both side, presently, the respondent, after promotion, is working as the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (ASI). The respondent as RW-1 in his cross-examination has also stated that, according to him, as in the year 2014, the petitioner was incurring an expenditure of a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that, as on the date of filing of the petition in the Family Court, the petitioner was entitled for maintenance at the rate of a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month from the respondent. Since the Family Court has erred in analysing the evidence led before it, the same has resulted into an erroneous finding given by it on the points raised by it for consideration, as such, interference at the hands of this Court, in the said order, is warranted. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER [i] The revision petition of the petitioner is allowed; [ii] The order dated 28-04-2016 passed by the learned III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, in Crl.Misc.No.37/2007, is set aside; [iii] Crl.Misc.No.37/2007 filed by the petitioner in the Family Court is allowed; The petitioner – Smt. Sujatha, W/o. Prasanna Venkatesh, is entitled for a maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/-per month from the respondent from the date of petition during her lifetime or till she remarries, whichever is earlier. In view of disposal of the main matter, I.A.No.2/2016 for stay, does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous. Registry to transmit a copy of this order to the Family Court along with its records forthwith.