JUDGMENT R.N. Sharma, J. - The learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, has made this reference with the recommendation for setting aside the order dated 27-10-1964 passed by Sri J. N. Dwivedi, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patti, directing Ramraj to pay a total amount of Rs. 35/- per month as a maintenance to his wife, Smt. Amrawati Devi and a minor son of the parties. Smt. Amrawati had filed an application under Sec. 488, Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that the opposite party had opened a shop of betels and cigarettes at Fatanpur which was at a distance of one mile from the parties village. The husband had developed intimate connection with the widowed aunt of one Jag Narain and he mostly lives there. He has also got a daughter of that woman married to his younger brother. He gives beating to his wife and harasses her. He does not provide the wife and the 3 years old son living with her with maintenance. He has also been threatening to turn them out of the house. The wife belongs to a high caste of Hindu society and cannot work as a labourer. Thus she is in great trouble and is unable to maintain herself and son. The husband possesses considerable property and has an income of Rs. 200/- per month from his shop. He has also some deposits in the bank. Thus she prayed for a maintenance allowance of Rs. 30/- per month for herself and the same amount for the maintenance of her minor son. The husband Ramraj contested the application denying all these allegations of his wife. He alleged that his younger brother, Dwarka entertains malice and grudge against him and wants to take half share in the property and he induced the wife to make this application with wrong allegations. The husband was always willing to keep the wife with him and to maintain her but she was under the baneful influence of his brother and wants to live separately. 2. Both parties produced evidence and on considering the same the Magistrate found the wifes allegations correct and directed the husband to pay a total amount of Rs. 35/- per month as maintenance. 3. Aggrieved by this order the husband, Ramraj went in revision before the Sessions Judge. 2. Both parties produced evidence and on considering the same the Magistrate found the wifes allegations correct and directed the husband to pay a total amount of Rs. 35/- per month as maintenance. 3. Aggrieved by this order the husband, Ramraj went in revision before the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the wife had not been able to establish the necessary ingredients of Sec. 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to be entitled to maintenance. In his opinion there was no legal evidence to show that the husband ever refused to maintain or neglected, his wife and son. He was further of the opinion that the Magistrate had passed the order on mere conjectures and surmises and the order of the Magistrate was perverse and illegal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I am not inclined to agree with the learned Sessions Judge. As said above, both parties had examined some witnesses. Two witnesses P. W. 2 Danpal Singh and P. W. 3 Gopal Narain were examined on behalf of the wife, besides herself. These witnesses are residents of the same village where the parties reside. They supported the statement of the wife that the husband neglect her and stays away from the village. Of course, the have no personal knowledge as where the husband resides when h is not in the village and also of the beating of the wife by the husband. The witnesses on behalf of the other side are Ramraj himself, and P. W. Debi Prasad and P. W. 3 Ram Dularey. They state that Ramraj neve beats his wife, that both live in the same house and that no threat was ever given to the wife by the husband. 5. The witnesses were examined be fore the Magistrate and he was in a better position to assess the value of their evidence. It is true that the wife has not been able to produce such evidence as may be legally admissible to prove that the husband lives with another woman or that he has been beating the wife. She is a pardahanashin lady and it was difficult for her to procure witnesses from the places to which her husband belongs or where he stays. But merely for this reason her case cannot be thrown out. She is a pardahanashin lady and it was difficult for her to procure witnesses from the places to which her husband belongs or where he stays. But merely for this reason her case cannot be thrown out. Quarrels between a husband and a wife generally take place within the four walls of the house particularly when the wife happens to be pardahnashin woman. The wife herself is the best witness to state facts concerning her relations with the husband and unless there is something particularly wrong with the wife or the husband, she would not like to bring an action against her husband and harass him. There is absolutely no allegation against the character of Smt. Amrawati. Admittedly she is a gentle lady. I am unable to see how she could be persuaded by her husband's brother to file an application against the husband under Sec. 488, Code of Criminal Procedure, and disrupt her relations with the husband. There may be differences between the two brothers but a chaste and good wife will not like to take sides with the husband's brother and harm her own husband. The person who is said to have had differences with the husband, is the brother of the husband and not of the wife herself. I am not prepared to believe that without rhyme or reason the wife made this application against the husband merely under the persuation of the husband's brother. 6. It has been contended by the learned counsel for Ramraj who supports the reference, that the wife is not legally entitled to separate maintenance when she is living in the same house along with her husband. 7. He has placed reliance on a single Judge decision of the Calcutta High Court in Sew Kumhar v. Mongru Kumharin, AIR 1959 Calcutta 454. It was held in that case that the provisions of Sec. 488 are really intended for ensuring some supply of food, clothes and shelter to deserted wives and children; they are not intended to be used by wives who are living with their husbands, on the plea that the husbands are ill-treating them and not giving sufficient money for their maintenance or making their lives miserable and that view such case the wives should seek remedy by first separating and when seeking maintenance or dissolution of the marriage. 8. 8. With respect I am unable to agree with the view that in order to claim maintenance a neglected wife has first to walk out of the house of the husband and then only she can claim maintenance. Generally Indian wives do not possess independent means or property and if the law would require them first to walk out of the husbands house and then claim maintenance, the position would be intolerable. The wife may have no place to go to and may haveno means to hire a separate residence. A different view, was taken by Kapur, J. of The Punjab High Court in Shiyam Sunder v. Mansa Devi, A.I.R. 1955 N.U.C. (Punjab) 5731 (V.42). It was held in this case that there can be desertion even where the husband and wife are living under the same roof, and where the wife has been beaten and turned out of the matrimonial house by the husband and the wife resides in the same house but in different apartments and has separate messing and lodging and the husband makes no payment towards her maintenance, there is wilful neglect or refusal to maintain her. 9. In the instant case the allegation is that the husband and wife are living in the same house but in separate portions. The wife cannot be deemed to be living under the care and shelter of the husband merely because she happens to reside in the same house. 10. Considering all the facts and circumstances I am of the view that Ramraj has neglected Smt. Amrawati and their minor son and he failed to provide maintenance to them. The order of the Magistrate for payment of the maintenance to them by Ramraj was correct and it cannot be set aside. I, therefore, reject the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge.