1. If I understand the judgment aright it has been found as a fact by the learned Judge that the petitioner, knowing or having reason to believe that the woman was the wife of the complainant, detained her in his home and kept her from her husband with the intent that she should continue to co-habit with him. It is admitted by the learned pleader for the petitioner, that his first plea as to the proof of the marriage cannot be sustained, but he contends that on the facts found by the Judge, and in the absence of proof of enticement, there can be no conviction under Section 498 of the Penal Code. In support of the view he refers to a ruling of Pearson and Oldfield, JJ., I.L.R., 4 All., p. 251, which no doubt favours his contention, though whether the decision of those learned Judges is to be regarded as confined to the facts of that particular case is not altogether clear. At any rate, the point now raised does not seem to have been discussed. In my opinion, the words ' such woman ' in Section 498 do not mean ' such woman so enticed as aforesaid,' but do mean ' such woman whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man,' and that the detention of such a woman with the intent therein provided is one of the offences comprehended in the section. The petitioner therefore was, in my opinion, rightly convicted. But I think upon all the facts disclosed here a sentence of one month's simple imprisonment would have been ample, and I direct that the record be so amended.