Section 482 cannot replace a second revision in maintenance matters; separate residence and maintenance may follow cohabitation with another woman.

Section 125 maintenance is meant to provide immediate relief, and the husband bears the burden of showing grounds to avoid that statutory duty. The Supreme Court said the High Court could not use Section 482 as a second revision or reappreciate evidence to upset a maintenance order. It further accepted that the wife's allegation that the husband was living with another woman constituted just ground for living separately and claiming maintenance, even though a legally valid second marriage was not proved. The reasoning was also consistent with Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which recognises a wife's right to separate residence and maintenance on recognised grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to interfere with an order granting maintenance under Section 125 of the Code, and whether the wife's entitlement to maintenance was displaced on the facts found.

Analysis: Proceedings under Section 125 are summary in nature and are intended to provide immediate relief to a wife, minor children, and parents unable to maintain themselves. The burden is on the husband to show that he has sufficient grounds to avoid the statutory obligation of maintenance. The High Court, while exercising inherent powers, cannot function as a court of second revision or reappraise evidence in a manner that substitutes a detailed merits review for the limited scope of Section 482. The wife's plea that the husband was living with another woman constituted just ground for living separately, and the inability to prove a legally valid second marriage did not erase the factual position relied upon for maintenance. The Court also noted that the husband's obligation under Section 125 is consistent with the scheme of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which recognises a wife's right to separate residence and maintenance on recognised grounds.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in invoking Section 482 of the Code to set aside the maintenance order, and the wife's claim to maintenance could not be defeated on the reasoning adopted by the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The maintenance order in favour of the wife stood restored and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for a second revision to reappreciate evidence in a maintenance matter, and a husband's cohabitation with another woman furnishes just ground for the wife to live separately and claim maintenance.

---