JUDGMENT - R.S. BHONSALE J.:---The petitioner in this revision application one Bhoorabai w/o Bhaulal has challenged the order passed by the Second Extra Assistant Judge, Aurangabad (in fact it should be Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad), allowing respondent No. 1 husbands revision application and setting aside the order of maintenance granting maintenance of Rs. 50/- per month passed in favour of the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gangapur. 2. The petitioner wife had filed an application for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the respondent husband in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gangapur, on 10th September, 1974. The averments in that application were that the petitioner was married to the respondent husband in the year 1968 at Apegaon, Taluka Gangapur and resided with the respondent husband. Two years prior to the date of the application, it is alleged, at the instigation of the father and the other members of the family the respondent husband behaved her (it should be treated) with cruelty and they demanded money from the mother of the petitioner wife who was unable to fulfil their demand. The ill-treatment to the petitioner started on account of several reasons including the inability of the petitioner parents to pay the money and gold ornaments to the father of the respondent husband. The petitioner was driven out by the respondent husband from his house in the month of October 1973 and since then she had been residing with her parents. The further averment in the application was that the respondent husband refused to provide clothes and meals. It was further averred that as the petitioner had no source of income for her maintenance and as the respondent husband was well-to-do person and was member of the joint family which possessed more than 60 acres of both irrigated and non-irrigated land at village Apegaon the income from which was Rs. 50,000/- per year, the petitioner was entitled to claim Rs. 500/- per month as a maintenance amount. 3. When this application was heard initially, the respondent contested the same and stated that there was no question of ill-treatment on his side. He was always ready and willing to maintain her. The respondent also stated that the mother of the petitioner wife had taken a loan of Rs. 500/- per month as a maintenance amount. 3. When this application was heard initially, the respondent contested the same and stated that there was no question of ill-treatment on his side. He was always ready and willing to maintain her. The respondent also stated that the mother of the petitioner wife had taken a loan of Rs. 500/- in cash and some gold and silver ornaments for her sons ( i.e., petitioners brother) marriage from the father of the respondent husband and since the petitioners (wifes) mother had refused to return either the gold and silver ornaments or the amount of Rs. 500/-, the father of the respondent husband had refused to send the petitioner to her parents. However, in the month of October 1973, the parents of the wife as well as some villagers came to his house and forcibly took the petitioners to her parents house. It was averred that the allegations made in the applications were false and baseless and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 4. As both the sides keenly contested the application for maintenance, the learned trial Magistrate by his judgment and order dated July 2, 1976, granted the wifes application and allowed Rs. 50/- per month by way of maintenance. The husband preferred a revision application against the same before the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, who in turn remanded the matter for fresh enquiry mainly on two grounds : (1) Whether the offer of the respondent husband to his wife to reside with him was bona fide; and (2) whether the wifes refusal to live with her husband was without any sufficient reason. 5. The learned trial Magistrate after remand appreciated the evidence, heard the arguments of both the sides and came to the following conclusion. (1) As per the direction of the Sessions Judge in revision application, the husband had taken back his wife into his house, but within five days of her stay with the husband her brother took her away from the respondent husband. (2) it was quite possible and natural that the respondents father and the respondent husband himself might have beaten the wife for bringing money from her mother. (2) it was quite possible and natural that the respondents father and the respondent husband himself might have beaten the wife for bringing money from her mother. In the opinion of the learned trial Magistrate, that ill-treatment could be either by words or by the conduct and the very fact that the husband had not provided the wife any clothes or food for five years during which time she was staying with her parents, itself indicated that there was refusal on the part of the husband to maintain his wife. In view of this discussion, the learned trial Magistrate held that the wife had proved refusal and neglect to maintain by her husband and, therefore, she was entitled to claim separate maintenance from her husband. He therefore, allowed the application and granted Rs. 50/- per month by way of maintenance in favour of the wife by his judgment and order dated December 18, 1978. 6. The respondent husband being aggrieved by the said order, preferred revision application No. 19 of 1978 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, after going through the entire evidence all over again came to the conclusion that the evidence given by the petitioner wife as well as by her three other witnesses on the question of ill-treatment and beating was not only contradictory and hearesy, but it was also contrary to the averments made in the application itself. In the opinion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge the petitioner wife had made three ground in the evidence. Firstly, that the husband was ill-treating and beating her because she was not able to conceive a child. Secondly, she was committing mistakes in the house hold work and thirdly, her mother had not repaid the amount of loan of Rs. 500/- . None of these three grounds were referred to in the original application. I have referred to the contention and averments in the original application in the earlier part of the judgment and they do not refer to these three grounds in the evidence at all except vaguely stating that there was ill-treatment and beating mated out to the petitioner wife by the respondent husband. 7. I have referred to the contention and averments in the original application in the earlier part of the judgment and they do not refer to these three grounds in the evidence at all except vaguely stating that there was ill-treatment and beating mated out to the petitioner wife by the respondent husband. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has examined all three grounds and has found out that firstly, on the question of beating and ill-treatment itself, the witnesses Bhoorabai the petitioner herself, Manik and her father, Dashrath gave not only inconsistent, but altogether different versions. The respondent husband had in fact given notice at Exhibit 8 that she should come back to her husbands place and reside with him. This notice was issued on June 13, 1974, in reply to this notice, the petitioners Advocate had stated that the petitioner did not live at the house of the respondent as she was driven away forcibly from her husbands house. It was further stated that there was an apprehension to the life of the wife and therefore, husband should arrange for maintenance of the wife. In this reply dated July, 24, 1974, also none of the points which are made now in the evidence were referred to by the advocate for the petitioners wife. As stated earlier, even the application originally made is silent on three grounds which are now made out and sought to be supported by the evidence of one Manik and her father Dashrath. In appears that the wife did not want to go to her husbands place, but she desired to live with her father at the cost of her husband. This recalcitrant attitude on the part of the wife has been commented upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. We, therefore, came to the conclusion that not only the wife had failed to prove the ill-treatment and beating and refusal on the part of the husband to maintain her, but she had taken an extreme attitude of not going to the place of her husband and desiring to stay with her father by getting maintenance. 8. The words "without any sufficient reason" contained in Clause (4) of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, deal with the refusal of wife to live with her husband. 8. The words "without any sufficient reason" contained in Clause (4) of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, deal with the refusal of wife to live with her husband. Clause (4) says : "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 her husband." The words "without any sufficient reason" are objective and not subjective and have to be interpreted in the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, there are glaring infirmities in the case of the wife. In her original application for maintenance she has vaguely referred to ill-treatment and beating, but the more glaring part of the case of the wife has been that she had made out a completely new case on the grounds which were neither referred in the reply to the notice dated July 24, 1974, nor in the petition dated September 10, 1974. 9. In these circumstances, I cannot persuade myself to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowing the application of the respondent husband and setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate granting maintenance to the petitioner wife. The attitude of the wife seems to be adamant and recalcitrant. The basis ingredient of the section that there must be refusal on the part of the husband to maintain his wife has not been proved and, therefore, it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. 10. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. -----