Judgment :- 1. The Counter Petitioner in the Court below is the Revision Petitioner. The petition is one filed under S. 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The 1st petitioner in the Court below is the wife and the second petitioner the daughter of the Counter Petitioner. The husband and wife are living separate from 8.1.1124. The wife filed a criminal complaint on 10.1.1124 alleging that the husband assaulted her. That case is still pending. It was alleged in the petition that the husband was guilty of habitual cruelty and that he deserted the wife and child. Maintenance was claimed at the rate of Rs. 35/- per mensem for the wife and Rs. 15/- for the child. According to the petitioner the counter-petitioner is worth Rs. 15,000/-, and the annual income from his properties is Rs. 150/- and he gets a monthly salary of Rs. 40/-. The counter petitioner denied the allegations in the petition and contended that the petitioner refused to live with him for no justifiable reason and that he was prepared to maintain her and the child according to his means if they would go and live with him. He also contended that he had only a puduval property which yielded little income and that his monthly salary was only Rs. 20/-. 2. In disposing of the petition the Court below proceeded on the basis that the dispute between the parties related only to the quantum of maintenance. The learned Magistrate made a local inspection of the property belonging to the counter petitioner and came to the conclusion that Rs. 300 per year would be the yield from the property. On this basis the learned Magistrate awarded Rs. 15/- a month as maintenance for both the petitioners together. 3. One of the grounds raised in the revision petition is that the Court below went wrong in not recording a finding on the question whether there was sufficient reason for the wife to refuse to live with her husband. The revision petitioner had expressed his willingness in the Court below to maintain his wife f she would go and live with him. According to him there was no justifiable reason for her refusing to live with him. The revision petitioner had expressed his willingness in the Court below to maintain his wife f she would go and live with him. According to him there was no justifiable reason for her refusing to live with him. The proviso to S. 488, sub-s. (3) says that if the husband offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him and she refuses to live with him, the Magistrate may consider the grounds of refusal stated by her and award maintenance under the section notwithstanding such offer if he is satisfied that there is just ground for awarding such maintenance. Sub-s. (4) provides that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under the section if without any sufficient reason she refuses to live with him. In 1951 KLT 655 this Court held that if the wife is not living with her husband and if the husband offers to maintain her if she would live with him, it is for the wife to prove that there is sufficient reason for her refusal to live with the husband. The learned Magistrate was bound to go into the question whether there was sufficient reason for the 1st petitioner refusing to live with the counter petitioner. It was submitted on behalf of the counter-petitioner that he had not given up his contention in the court below that his wife refused to live with him without any justifiable reason and that she was therefore not entitled to separate maintenance. 4. The second ground urged on behalf of the revision petitioner is that the Court below omitted to consider the evidence adduced in the case relating to his means, that the learned Magistrate went wrong in basing his decision on this point entirely on the local inspection made by him and that the local inspection itself was not conducted according to law. Six witnesses were examined in the case for the petitioners and four witnesses for the counter Petitioner. Most of these witnesses speak to the counter petitioner's means and the income from his property. Learned Magistrate has not even referred to the evidence of any of these witnesses. The finding of the learned Magistrate is based entirely on the local inspection of the property of the counter-petitioner. The local inspection was apparently made under S. 539 B of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads thus: "539B. Learned Magistrate has not even referred to the evidence of any of these witnesses. The finding of the learned Magistrate is based entirely on the local inspection of the property of the counter-petitioner. The local inspection was apparently made under S. 539 B of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads thus: "539B. (1) Any Judge or Magistrate may at any stage of any enquiry, trial or other proceeding, after due notice to the parties visit and inspect any place in which an offence is alleged to have been committed or any other place which it is in his opinion necessary to view for the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence given at such enquiry or trial, and shall without unnecessary delay record a memorandum of any relevant facts observed at such inspection. (2) Such memorandum shall form part of the record of the case. If the Public Prosecutor, complainant or accused so desires a copy of the memorandum shall be furnished to him free of cost; Provided that in the case of a trial by jury or with the aid of assessors the judge shall not act under this section unless such jury or assessors are also allowed a view under S. 293". It is clear from the wording of the section that the object of local inspection contemplated by the section is to properly appreciate the evidence given at enquiry or trial. It will not, therefore, be proper to base the decision of the case entirely on the result of the local inspection. Reference may be made to Moinuddin v. Emperor (1921 Patna 415) in which it was held that the Magistrate can make use of the local inspection only for the purpose of understanding the evidence adduced before him and that he cannot use it as evidence for deciding the main issue in the case. 5. Another requirement of the Section is that the Magistrate should record a memorandum of the facts observed by him at the inspection without unnecessary delay. In this case the learned Magistrate does not appear to have recorded any such memorandum. This is clearly an irregularity. (Vide Jawala Singh v. Emperor, 1923 Lahore 479), Badal Ali v. Emperor (1939 Calcutta 304), and Athar Hussain v. Emperor, (1922 Patna 51). 6. Yet another irregularity committed by the Magistrate is that he awarded a consolidated amount as monthly allowance for both the petitioners together. This is clearly an irregularity. (Vide Jawala Singh v. Emperor, 1923 Lahore 479), Badal Ali v. Emperor (1939 Calcutta 304), and Athar Hussain v. Emperor, (1922 Patna 51). 6. Yet another irregularity committed by the Magistrate is that he awarded a consolidated amount as monthly allowance for both the petitioners together. The wife and the daughter are entitled to separate allowance and it was not proper to have awarded a consolidated amount as allowance for both of them together. 7. For these various reasons the order of the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained. I, therefore, set aside the order and send back the case to the Court below for fresh disposal according to law and in the light of the observations made above. The learned Magistrate will dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. 8. The revision petition is allowed. Allowed.