ORDER Anantanarayanan, J. 1. I think it is very plain that this order under Section 488, Criminal P.C., for payment to maintenance of Rs. 35 per month to the wife living separately (first respondent) and Rs. 20 per month as maintenance for each child (respondents 2 and 3) or Rs. 75 in all, cannot be maintained and should be set aside in the interests of justice, and a rehearing of the petition by some other magistrate directed. Since I am directing a rehearing of the petition of the wife and children (respondents) who do not now appear to contest these revision proceedings, I shall make no comments on the credibility to be attached to the evidence of the wife on legal cruelty. But the learned Magistrate was bound to record a finding that, in his view, there was such legal cruelty, entitling the wife (first respondent) to live away from her husband, and to claim separate maintenance for herself and her children. This is all the more so because of the evidence of the defense witnesses examined by the present revision petitioner. 2. Now, and this is a fundamental axiom on which I need not dilate, the law does not require that any facts should be proved by a particular quantity of evidence; it is legal for the court to act upon the uncorroborated evidence of the wife alone, concerning a fact, like legal cruelty or ill-treatment. But, normally, a wife, subjected to physical ill-treatment or cruelty, is likely to complain to neighbors or immediate relatives, and such evidence will often be valuable in corroboration of her testimony. No such evidence seems to have been made available in this particular case. The learned magistrate does not find, as a Question of fact, that legal cruelty was established. He states that the wife had no motive to claim separate maintenance, if her husband had not been cruel to her. This is an inconclusive argument. It will imply that every petition for maintenance is justified, even though the wife is strictly uncorroborated, and her story may not be worthy of credit. This is not the law, and, in the experience of courts, there are at least some proceedings for separate maintenance under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which are founded upon untrue allegations. It will imply that every petition for maintenance is justified, even though the wife is strictly uncorroborated, and her story may not be worthy of credit. This is not the law, and, in the experience of courts, there are at least some proceedings for separate maintenance under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which are founded upon untrue allegations. The only reason given by the learned Magistrate for the award of separate maintenance is: Since prosecution witness 1 is afraid to live with her husband, I order that the respondent should pay a maintenance of Rs. 35 a month to the petitioner. 3. This is a misdirection on a question of law. The fear of a wife to live with her husband, however genuine, does not, per se, entitle her to live separate from her husband and claim separate maintenance. With these observations, I set aside the order of the lower court, and direct that the entire case should be reheard and disposed of by some other Magistrate to whom the learned District Magistrate of Tiruchirapalli should send the case for disposal. In such further hearing of the petition, both parties will be at liberty to adduce evidence. Ordered accordingly. AI/LCC/DVC Order accordingly.