Maintenance for wife requires proved neglect or refusal; second marriage alone does not defeat entitlement under criminal procedure law.

Under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a husband's second marriage does not by itself amount to neglect or refusal to maintain the first wife. It is only a just ground for her to refuse to live with him, while maintenance remains confined to food, clothing and shelter. On the facts stated, the record showed material that the husband had declined to take the wife back and had otherwise failed in his duty to maintain her, so entitlement to maintenance was sustained on proof of neglect or refusal, not on second marriage alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether a wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely because her husband has contracted a second marriage, and whether the evidence showed neglect or refusal to maintain her.

Analysis: The statutory condition for maintenance is that the husband, having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to maintain his wife. A second marriage by itself gives the first wife a just ground to refuse to live with the husband, but it does not by itself establish neglect or refusal to maintain. The provision is confined to maintenance for food, clothing, and shelter, and does not protect broader conjugal rights. On the record, there was material that the husband had declined to take the wife back and had otherwise failed in his duty to maintain her, so the matter could not be decided solely on the rejected allegation of assault and expulsion.

Conclusion: The wife was entitled to maintenance, and the husband's second marriage did not defeat that entitlement on the facts proved.

Final Conclusion: The maintenance order was upheld and the revision failed, though the legal basis of the order was clarified to rest on neglect or refusal to maintain rather than on second marriage alone.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a second marriage by the husband is only a just ground for the wife's refusal to live with him and does not, by itself, amount to neglect or refusal to maintain; maintenance follows only where such neglect or refusal is proved.

---