ORDER H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - This revision is directed against an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Kumayun at Nainital upholding in revision the order of the learned Magistrate of Nainital directing the Petitioner-opposite-party to pay a maintenance allowance of Rs. 25/- per month to Smt. Basanti Devi, the opposite-party applicant, who is his legally wedded wife, u/s 483 Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. On 10-10-962 an application was presented by the Respondent before the magistrate on the allegations that she was the legally wedded wife of the applicant, that the applicant has been neglecting to maintain her since the last about two years and she was, therefore, entitled to receive from him a maintenance allowance of Rs. 50/-per month. In his written statement the applicant admitted the marriage but asserted that she had gone back to her father's home out of her own accord, that she had not been ill-treated in any manner, that the applicant was prepared to keep her with himself at his house and to maintain her but the parents of the Respondent wanted to send her with some other person and had, therefore, manipulated the present application against him. 3. In support of the application u/s 488 Code of Criminal Procedure the Respondent examined herself and her father Panni Ram. One Tika Ram testified to have seen the Respondent weeping near her husband's house while he was passing in the village. 4. The applicant Gabar Ram, his father, Kali Ram and one Dungar Ram, Sarpanch of the village, supported the case of the applicant before the Magistrate to the effect that they had never ill treated Smt. Basanti Devi and that she had gone away from the house out of her own accord. 5. On an assessment of evidence led by the parties, the learned Magistrate held that "the circumstances under which the applicant left or had to leave the house of her father-in-law had not been fully established. 5. On an assessment of evidence led by the parties, the learned Magistrate held that "the circumstances under which the applicant left or had to leave the house of her father-in-law had not been fully established. However, it is clear from the evidence that the opposite party and his father did not make any sincere efforts to find out or bring back the applicant to their home." On this finding and also because the applicant had made an allegation in his written statement "that her lather wants to keep her in somebody else's house to make money" and that he expressed suspicion about the character of his wife, the Magistrate allowed her monthly allowance of Rs. 25/. On revision the order of the Magistrate was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. In my opinion it is not a fit case in which the Respondent's application for monthly allowance should have been granted. 7. The applicant who is 20 years of age is still a student at Mukhteshwar. His wife Smt. Basanti Devi who was living at that time with her father-in-law left the house, because according to her, she was beaten by her husband. The learned Magistrate has held that this part of the case has not been established. In her statement Basanti Devi says that she was prepared to live with her husband if he could give it in writing that she would not be beaten by him. The applicant in his deposition expressed his desire to keep his wife with him and to maintain her and also to give in writing that neither he or his parents will ever ill-treat her. 8. In the circumstances, I do not understand how the magistrate thought it fit to award monthly allowance to the Respondent when she was willing to go with her husband and when the applicant was willing to take her with him on fulfilling all the conditions which she had imposed for accompanying him. 9. There is another aspect of the question which needs consideration. The applicant Gabar Ram has filed a postal receipt dated 27.9.1961 which indicates that he had addressed a registered communication to the father of the Respondent. He has also filed a copy of the letter of the same date which he says to have addressed to the father of the girl. The applicant Gabar Ram has filed a postal receipt dated 27.9.1961 which indicates that he had addressed a registered communication to the father of the Respondent. He has also filed a copy of the letter of the same date which he says to have addressed to the father of the girl. A perusal of this letter shows that after knowing that his wife was at her father-in-law's place he asked him to reach her at his house. These two documents, in my opinion, lend some assurance to the applicant's contention that he was always prepared to keep the Respondent with him but her parents, for one reason or the. other, were procrastinating in the matter. 10. It is no doubt true that the applicant has made a statement that since his wife left his place in the company of her brother-in-law he suspected his character. Both the lower courts have considered it as an allegation of unchastity against the Respondent. I do not agree. There was no clear and unequivocal allegation of unchastity made by the applicant against the Respondent. He only expressed his suspicion against her character which was based on the allegation that she had left her husband's house in the company of another person. In the written statement also, which has been relied upon by both the lower courts for holding that there was such an allegation by the applicant, he has only stated that the parents of the girl wanted to derive illegal benefit by making her to go with some other person as his wife. This allegation cannot amount to an allegation of unchastity against the Respondent. 11. In the case of Pheku Singh v. Attiraji Kunwar reported in 1961 AWR 531 there was a clear and categorical assertion by the husband that his wife had a child by someone else and that while he was away from home she contracted illicit intimacy with other persons on account of her loose character. It is, therefore, clear that that case is distinguishable on facts. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion of the evidence and the circumstances appearing in the record I am of the opinion that the findings given by the lower courts are improper and cannot be sustained in law. 13. This revision is allowed. The order of the magistrate dated 6.5.1963 in Criminal Case No. 11/29 of 1962 is set aside.