B.B. Mangalmurti, J.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 as well as learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Instant application has been filed for quashing/setting aside the order dated 17.04.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Cr. Revision No. 04 of 2004 wherein the court has held that the petitioner no.1-wife is not entitled for maintenance and order of grant of maintenance in her favour passed by the court of S.D.J.M., Seraikella-Kharsawan has been set aside. Although, the maintenance amount ordered in favour of minor daughter Laxmi Murmu was found justified and the revision application was partly allowed and partly dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order passed in revision, instant application has been filed by the petitioner no. 1-Maya Murmu being wife of Karu Murmu and minor daughter Laxmi Murmu against the O.P. No. 2 Karu @ Dasrath Murmu husband/father of the petitioners herein.

3. The case in short is that petitioner No.1 and O.P. No.2 had love affairs and thereafter they married according to the customs prevalent in their society. They also got their marriage registered before the Sub-Registrar, Chaibasa who issued marriage certificate no. 6197 dated 14.03.1997. Further case is that out of the said wedlock petitioner No. 2 Laxmi Murmu was born. After the birth of the daughter, O.P. No. 2 started ill treating the petitioner No. 1 and neglected to provide basic necessities. Finally they were driven out from matrimonial home and the O.P. No. 2-husband contracted another marriage with Parvati Tudu and enjoying the matrimonial life. Opposite Party No. 2 refused to maintain the petitioners. After consideration of the evidences adduced on behalf of the petitioners and the Opposite Party No. 2, the court of S.D.J.M., Seraikella-Kharsawan in C/7 Case No. 33 of 2001 awarded the maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The court directed the Opposite Party No. 2-husband to pay Rs. 300/- per month to the petitioner no. 1-wife and Rs. 200/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner no. 2-daughter from the date of filing of the application with the condition that payment of maintenance to the O.P. No. 2-daughter will be paid till solemnization of her marriage or she attains the age of majority whichever happens earlier.

4. Aggrieved by the said order of maintenance passed by the court of S.D.J.M., Seraikella-Kharsawan O.P. No. 2-husband approached the court of Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan by filing Criminal Revision No. 04 of 2004. The re-visional court set aside the order granting maintenance to the wife-Maya Murmu but confirmed the order of maintenance payable to the minor daughter-Laxmi Murmu.

5. Aggrieved by the order of re-visional court petitioners Maya Murmu wife of Karu @ Dasrath Murmu and daughter-Laxmi Murmu approached this court through the instant petition.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the re-visional court has erred in holding that the petitioner no. 1 used to work in the field and is earning Rs. 25/- per day as wages, therefore she is not entitled for any maintenance from her husband. She also submitted that the court has also held that both husband and wife are labourers in real case who used to maintain themselves by earning daily wages. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the re-visional court has also erred in holding that the wife has preferred to live in her Naihar which is also situated in the same village instead of living in Sasural and she created a situation under which applicant was forced to marry another lady. Therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. At this juncture learned counsel for the petitioners referred the explanation attached to Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. which reads as under:-

"If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wifes refusal to live with him."

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2-husband Karu @ Dasrath Murmu submitted that the re-visional court has considered the customs prevalent in Santhal community where both husband and wife used to work in the field and earn therefrom. The court has rightly held that she is working as a labourer in the field and since she has deserted and preferred to live in her Naihar instead of her Sasural, the re-visional court has rightly set aside the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the court of S.D.J.M., Seraikella-Kharsawan.

8. Also heard the learned A.P.P. for the State.

9. Considering the above submissions of the parties and on perusal of the papers brought on record it appears that the re-visional court has not considered that the petitioner no.1 is a legally wedded wife and the marriage was registered and was also solemnized through the customs prevalent in the society as admitted by the witnesses. The contract of second marriage is itself a ground for which she is entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The court did not consider this aspect of the matter in the right perspective. The earning of Rs. 25/- per day is not sufficient to maintain any human being whereas the husband is liable for proper maintenance of his wife. The husband is having sufficient landed property as per the evidences adduced in this case, therefore the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 04 of 2004 is set aside and the order passed by the court of S.D.J.M., Seraikella-Kharsawan in C/7 Case No. 33 of 2001 is restored fully, thereby the petitioner-wife is entitled for maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month and Rs. 200/- per month for the maintenance of petitioner no. 2 a minor child with the condition attached in the said order.

10. In the result, instant application is allowed.