Dua, J.

1. In this revision on November, 1963 I came to the conclusion that Smt. Pritam Kaurs petition under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, had been erroneously dismissed by the Courts below. On this conclusion, the amount of maintenance had to the determined. I accordingly directed the learned Magistrate to submit his report on the question of quantum of maintenance on the evidence on the record. The report was to be returned to this Court by the Magistrate within six weeks from 27th November, 1963. The report sent by the learned Magistrate in pursuance of that order was dated 2nd January, 1964 but the case was set down for hearing before me as late as 3rd August, 1994 when 1 found that the learned Magistrate had given no judicial reasons in support of this conclusion that Rs. 43/- per mensem as maintenance should be paid to Smt. Pritam Kaur. I sent the case back to the learned Magistrate for a fresh report supported by his reasons in the same way in which the Court writes a judgment after hearing the parties. The report was to be submitted to this Court before the end of August, 1964. I have before me now the learned Magistrates report dated 25th August, 1964. It has been stated in the order that Shri Sunder Singhs salary per mensem is Rs. 400/- and he gets a sum of Rs. 70/- per mensem on account of dearness allowance. The learned Magistrate has considered a sum of Rs. 40/- per mensem to be a fair amount of maintenance which should be allowed to Smt. Pritam Kaur. The learned Magistrate has observed in his order that according to the respondent Shri Sunder Singh, he had three children from his first wife and two from the second wife. It appears that reference to the second wife is intended to mean the wife who is at present living with the respondent. The learned Magistrate has accordingly observed in his order that the respondent has thus five children and another living wife with him. His liability has thus been observed to be considerable. The applicant, to use the words of the learned Magistrate, "is a single soul, has no other liability excepting herself. She has no child to rear and she is almost past middle age. She is also residing at a rural place." For these reasons, the sum of Rs. 40/- per mensem has under the circumstances been considered to be sufficient amount to make her both ends meet. This amount, according to the learned Magistrates report should be paid to her from the date of the application i.e. 13th March, 1959. Smt. Pritam Kaur has filed an affidavit in this Court in Thich she has stated that she wanted to lead evidence to show that the circumstances of the respondent have changed as he has been promoted as Executive Engineer and the prices of necessities of life having shot up, she deserves a fair maintenance allowance commensurate with the status of her husband. The Magistrate, according to her, has not allowed any fresh evidence to be led on these points. It has further been averred in the affidavit that Shri Sunder Singh is now posted as an Executive Engineer at Jullundur drawing a salary of over Rs. 1,200/- per mensem; he is insured for about Rs. 50,000/- has accumulated Government Provident Fund to the tune of about Rs. 25,000/- and has a bank balance of some thing between two lacs and three lacs of rupees in the Punjab National Bank, Post Office Savings Bank and National Savings Certificates. He also owns a kothi (No. 600, Park Road) in Model Town, Jullundur City; which is valued at about Rs. 50,000/-. He further owns landed property and has a big residential house in village Ranipur (near Phagwara) purchased before 1947 and also owns about 32 standard acres of land in village Bahane (near Phagwara) which has since been developed into a modern farm fitted with a tube-well, He is further stated to own about 33 standard acres of land in village Khaire (Railway Station Cheheroo) near Phagwara. Lastly, she has sworn that some of the property mentioned by her has been got mutated by her husband Shri Sunder Singh in the names of his sons. This affidavit is dated 4th March, 1964. In answer to this affidavit, Shri Sunder Singh has sworn that the learned Magistrate did not allow further evidence to be led because this Court had directed the question to be determined on the evidence already recorded. He has denied that he is drawing Rs. 1200/-. He has further deposed that his substantive rank is that of a Sub-Divisional Officer and his pay in that rank is Rs. 550/-. He is only officiating as Executive Engineer for which he is only getting Rs. 155/- as additional pay plus Rs. 85/- as dearness allowance. He is likely to be reverted to his substantive post at any moment or as soon as the emergency is withdrawn. Out of the total emoluments, there are large deductions made every month amounting to Rs. 150/- on account of income-tax, surcharge-tax professional tax, water tax and house rent etc. He is not insured at all. He has, however, admitted that he was insured for a sum of Rs. 8000/- but those policies were got paid up before 1947. After getting them paid up, he got two more policies amounting to Rs. 7,000/- but the same were also got paid up in 1957 and 1958. The constitutions to the General Provident Fund were also stopped from March, 1962. The total bank balance has been stated to be less than Rs. 6,000/- He has denied that he owns any house in Model Town; he has also denied that he owns any landed property or any residential house in village Ranipur or to have purchased any house in 1947. He does not own any land in village Bahane. He admits to own only one acre barani land in village Khaire. He has also denied the averment by Smt. Pritam Kaur that some of the property has been got mutated by him in the names of his sons. He has lastly deposed that he is to attain the age of 55 years in December, 1964 and is nearing retirement. He has no other source of income and he asserts that he has five children to maintain besides an aged mother who is exclusively dependent upon him. It may be pointed out that he has not stated anything as to why he is not entitled to the benefit of the rule raising the normal age of retirement to 58 years.

2. Before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Pritam Kaur, has very strongly argued that the learned Magistrate is wrong in taking into consideration that maintenance of the three of the respondents children from his first wife are his (their fathers) liabilty which has to be met out of his salary. According to the counsel, one of the respondents sons is in America and is earning a substantial amount. The respondents second son is a Lieutenant in the Army. His daughter from the first wife is also married in a village near Phagwara with two children and her husband is also in the Army, probably a Lieutenant. The amount of maintenance has been fixed on the basis of the evidence which was led before 9th May, 1962, the date of the original order of the learned Magistrate dismissing Smt. Pritam Kaurs application under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. It has been admitted before me by Shri Ram Rang that out of the two children which the respondent has from the wife, who is at present living with him, one is aged 14 years and the other 16. Mr. Ram Rang is, however, not in a position to controvert the assertion made by Shri Hoshiarpuri who has made his statement after consulting his client who is present in Court.

3. As these assertions are not found in the evidence led in the case or in the affidavits produced by the parties before me. I should not like to base my conclusion on the basis of Shri Hoshiarpuris assertions, leaving it to the parties to utilise them according to law if they want in proceedings for variation under sect on 489 of the Code. The evidence on the record, however, clearly shows, and indeed it has also been so found by me in my order dated 27th November, 1963, that the respondents first wife Smt. Amarjit Kaur, daughter of Prem Singh, died in 1945, leaving behind three children ten years after her marriage with the respondent. Sunder Singh himself appearing as R.W. 1 stated that he had first been married to Smt. Amarjit Kaur in 1935 and that she died in 1945 leaving behind three children. It is obvious that the children from the first wife must by now be quite grown up. It is also in evidence that the father of Smt Amarjit Kaur and the father of Smt. Pritam Kaur were cousin brothers and that under Singh married Smt. Surjit Kaur, a widow, by way of Chalar andazi in 1947 from whom he has a daughter and son. These conclusions are incontestable, as indeed they are supported even by the affidavit filed in this Court by Sunder Singh and are not controverted by his counsel.

4. In my opinion, on the existing record it is perfectly safe to hold that the three children from Sunder Singhs first wife must be fairly grown up.

5. In so far as the question of quantum of maintenance under section 488 is concerned, it has to be fixed on consideration, inter alia, of the wifes status in life, her reasonably necessary requirements, though not luxuries, the means of the husband and the respective positions of the husband and the wife. The amount fixed should certainly not be extravagant, but it is equally clear that it should by no means be penurious. Proper maintenance must be allowed to the helpless neglected wife. It has in this connection to be borne in mind that the recent policy of law in our country is to raise the status of women in our society and they are no longer to be treated as inferior beings, possessed of no legal rights. The respondent, who is an educated man, holding a responsible Government position in this welfare democratic Republic, is accordingly expected to honor with good grace his legal and moral obligations towards the petitioner. The fact that the husband has chosen to indulge in the luxury of marrying another wife can scarcely constitute, by itself, a legal justification for refusing to maintain, the first wife. In Bart Bhushan v. Sudershan Kumari Cr.R.No. 1037 of 1954, Criminal Revision No. 1037 of 1954 decided by J.L. Kapur J. on 11th March, 1955, a maintenance order of Rs 45/- per month for the wife and a son was upheld and not varied at the instance of the husband, although he had a second wife and was getting only Rs. 110/- per month inclusive of allowances etc. Keeping in view, therefore, the present high cost of living (it is much higher than in 1945 which Kapur J. considered to be high) and also the fact that the petitioner, who is. as the learned Magistrate has described her, "almost past middle age", may reasonably be expected to require a little more comfortable life than a person of younger years, a sum of Rs. 40/- per month would seem to me clearly to be much too inadequate, but keeping in view also the liabilities of Sunder Singh (though for increasing his own liabilities, the petitioner can scarcely be held responsible and should in fairness not be made to suffer) the maintenance allowance should at least be fixed at Rs. 60/- per month. This, in my opinion, on the admitted financial position of the respondent, should be the barest minimum which must be allowed. This amount is being fixed by me on the basis of the evidence led in the case and on the basis of the respondents own affidavit filed in this Court. I am ignoring the petitioners affidavit and also the assertions made by the petitioners counsel at the bar before me on the instructions of his client. It would, however, be open to her to seek alteration in the amount on account of change of circumstances in proper proceedings under section 489 Criminal Procedure Code in which proceedings, it would be open to her to establish by proper evidence the fact that some of the respondents children are very well settled in life, a circumstance which I have not taken into account.

6. The respondents learned counsel has most forcefully urged that his client is willing to keep the petitioner in his house and that for this reason no separate maintenance should be allowed to her, if she refuses to come and live with him. This argument apparently ignores the provision of sub-section (3) of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code and particularly the second part of the first proviso, according to which if a husband contracts a second marriage, it is a just ground for his first wife to refuse to live with him. The petitioners refusal to go and live with the respondent in these circumstances can thus by no means be considered to be a good ground in law in depriving her of the right of maintenance from her husband. Besides. I am also far from convinced that the respondent is honestly and genuinely desirous of keeping the petitioner in his house as his wife, giving her proper status of house wife to which she is entitled. This belated offer from the bar gives an impression of a mere pretext for avoiding his legal liability. I, therefore, unhesitatingly repel this submission and fix the amount of maintenance at Rs. 60/- per month.

7. On behalf of the respondent, an attempt has been made to urge that this amount should not be directed to be paid from the date of the application in the Court of the learned Magistrate as suggested in his report dated 25th August, 1964. Shri Ram Rang has submitted that it is a great hardship on the respondent to pay the accumulated sum of arrears and in this connection he has again emphasised that his client has to bring up his children and also to support his wife who is living with him. An appeal has been made to me in the name of justice and fair play not to agree with the learned Magistrate in ordering payment from the date of the application He has also submitted that his client had never consciously neglected to support Pritam Kaur because he had honestly and bona fide denied his marriage with Pritam Kaur.

8. I am completely unimpressed by this submission. The evidence on the record completely belies the assertion of his bona fides or of his honesty in denying his marriage with the petitioner and merely because he has a large family from the other wives is clearly insufficient in law to deprive the petitioner, who, it may be remembered, is also his wife, of her right to claim maintenance from her husband. To revert to what has been noticed earlier guided by a spirit of rationalism and sense of social justice, equality and human dignity, we have by recent enactments suitably raised the status of women, both legal and social. In practice, of course, to the regret of all progressive law abiding sections of society, there are still instances here and there of neglected wives even by educated men with respectable status of life. But their approach in treating women as inferior beings or as less privileged members of society is apparently injurious to our civilized social structure, violative of the principles of equality, justice and fair play, and somewhat obstructive to our progress as a free people. The sooner it is realised that this out molded approach may tend to recoil on every one who has sisters and daughters the more quickly it is likely to be discarded. However, I am unable to sustain the contention that merely because the husband has another wife at present living with him, and has also children from his other two wives, the petitioner should be deprived of her legitimate right of maintenance. It must not be forgotten that the petitioner has now reasonable chance of improving her lot and has to live like a discarded wife of the respondent.

9. The fact that arrears have accumulated is also no justification for writing them off as the respondents learned counsel appears to suggest. The argument that the petitioner had somehow been managing to earn some amount to make her both ends meet daring this interval is inconclusive, as indeed it seems by itself to be wholly unavailing to the respondent for depriving her of her right of maintenance from the date of the application particularly when the learned Magistrate has himself made this suggestion in this report That the respondent has all these years been neglecting the petitioner and has also been persisting in denying his marriage with her and their living together, in his efforts to avoid his liability is also not irrelevant and may well be kept in view in this connection. It is not a matter of favour to the petitioner, nor is she begging for any charity. It is her right which is being enforced by this Court and indulgence to the respondent in this respect can only be at the cost of the petitioners right.

10. The amount of Rs. 60 per month would therefore be paid to the petitioner from the date of the application i.e. 13th March, 1959, the date recommended by the learned Magistrate in his report.