JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. - This revision is directed against order dated 25-8-1984 recorded by Sri R.B L. Behara, learned VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr who allowed Criminal Revision No. 10 of 1983 filed by the opposite party No. 2, Smt. Gulzar, wife of revisionist Sharaft and reversed the order of Sri Degondra Singh, learned IV Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Bulandshahr in Criminal Case No. 252 of 1983 rejecting the petition of opposite party No. 2 Smt. Gulzar for maintenance under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. Briefly stated the prosecution case was that Smt. Gulzar, aged about 22 or 23 years was married with Sharafat, aged about 21 years or so on May 24, 1980. After marriage wife lived at the house of her husband. A rift in the conjugal life commenced as Rashid brother of opposite party No. 2 diversed his wife Smt. Vanisha, daughter of brother of Smt. Batta mother-in-law of Smt. Gulzar. Revisionist developed illicit intimacy with Smt. Vanisha who was living with Smt. Batta and wanted her to live with revisionist. It was for this reason that Sharafat and his mother Smt. Batta ill treated Smt. Gulzar and harassed her. She was habitually assaulted. It was also alleged by them that she did not bring the sufficient dowry in her marriage. So her stay of at the house of the husband was risky. 2. It was about eight months prior to the filing of this petition on 19-7-1983 that the petitioner, was turned out by her husband, resident of Gulawathi, who left her at the house of her father in village Anchana and neglected to maintain her. Wife was not in a position to maintain herself and needed at least Rs. 300/- per month for her maintenance. Husband was earning about Rs. 1000/- per month by doing the job of blacksmith and could easily pay up the amount. Husband filed written statement and denied all these allegations. He denied that he ever ill-treated her. He further mentioned that he kept his wife with affection and respect he had never any illicit relation with Smt. Vanisha who was like his mother and lived separately at the house of his brother Rashid. Smt. Gulzar went away to the house of her parents along with ornaments and clothes about these three months prior to 23-8-1983 willingly. She had also been paid a sum of Rs. Smt. Gulzar went away to the house of her parents along with ornaments and clothes about these three months prior to 23-8-1983 willingly. She had also been paid a sum of Rs. 200/- by the husband towards the expenses. Thereafter she continued to stay with her parents and did not return to the house of the husband despite of the efforts made by the husband to fetch her. Nazir Ahmad P.W. 3, and Abdul Aziz also accompanied the husband to fetch her from village Anchana in vain. However, father of wife was adament and wanted to remarry her at a different place. Husband offered to maintain his wife, provided she lived with him. He earned only Rs. 150/- per month by repairing cycles and had no means to pay the amount of Rs. 300/- per month claimed as maintenance by the wife. Petitioner examined herself and her father ; on behalf of the revisionist there was his statement and statement of his brother Rashid, the husband of Smt. Vanisha and Nazir Ahmad. Learned Magistrate after scruting of evidence, found both the allegations of petitioner false. He recorded a finding that there was no illicit intimacy between Sharafat and Smt. Vanisha. He also found that Smt. Gulzar was never ill-treated by Sharafat. He further found that the husband was willing to maintain his wife who had no justifiable cause to stay at the house of her father. She was never neglected by the husband. In the result petition was dismissed. Learned revisional court found that in summary proceedings under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code standard of proof expected from the lady was not like that of criminal case. It was like a civil proceedings. It was not possible to expect from the wife that she could have lodged a report or got her injuries examined by the doctor to evidence cruelty of the husband similarly the mere fact that there was no cogent evidence of illicit intimacy of Sharafat with Smt. Vanisha could not defeat her claim. Offer of the husband to keep and maintain his wife could not defeat the claim of the lady as the proviso appended to Section 125(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates on the Magistrate to consider the ground of the wife for refusal to stay with the husband notwithstanding such offer. Offer of the husband to keep and maintain his wife could not defeat the claim of the lady as the proviso appended to Section 125(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates on the Magistrate to consider the ground of the wife for refusal to stay with the husband notwithstanding such offer. As regards the amount of maintenance learned Judge did not scrutinise evidence of Sharafat and Rashid to hold that monthly allowance of Rs. 150/- was awardable to the wife from the date of her application dated 19-71-988. In the result claim was allowed giving rise to this revision. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is correct that the proceedings under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code are of a civil nature but such proceedings do not amount to a civil suit. An enquiry under this section may be a summary one but the evidence on record has to be carefully scrutinised. By the courts, so long as the proceedings of the magistrate were in order and the Magistrate had fairly estimated the evidence before him his decision was not to be disturbed lightly even if the Sessions Judge was of the opinion that on the evidence another conclusion might have been reached. The revisional court should have been loathe to interfere with a finding of fact unless such findings was perverse, or was based on a gross error made by the Magistrate in the estimation of evidence. In the instant case the main ground laid in the petition for claim of maintenance was that Sharafat had illicit intimacy with Smt. Vanisha, wife of Rashid who was a divorcee, and happened to be daughter of maternal uncle of Sharafat. A careful scrutiny of statement of Smt. Gulzar D.P. W. 1, would go to show that she never cited any instance in her statement in which she might have been such illicit intimacy or any conduct of the husband which could have justified such inference on her part. On the other hand she stated that even the fact of divorce of Smt. Vanisha by Rashid was learnt by her through a letter dated 18-6-1982 written by Rashid to Ghafoor That letter is on record. It is in Urdu. Such inference is not deducible from that letter. Bashir Ahmad, lather of Smt. Gulzar lived, away in village Anchana. On the other hand she stated that even the fact of divorce of Smt. Vanisha by Rashid was learnt by her through a letter dated 18-6-1982 written by Rashid to Ghafoor That letter is on record. It is in Urdu. Such inference is not deducible from that letter. Bashir Ahmad, lather of Smt. Gulzar lived, away in village Anchana. He had absolutely no occasion to have known about such illicit intimacy between Sharafat and his sister-in-law in their house. In his statement Sharafat testified on oath that Smt. Vanisha was never divorced by her husband Rashid and lived in a separate house. He always treated her as his mother as she happened to be his elder sister-in-law. Rashid P.W. 2, appeared in the witness box and deposed on oath that he was elder brother of Sharafat and lived separately along with his wife Smt. Vanisha. Sharafat always treated his wife like his mother and the allegation of illicit intimacy between Sharafat and Smt. Vanisha was base-less. Learned Magistrate who had the occasion to observe the demeanour of witnesses rightly believed this evidence, specially when Sharafat was hardly 21 years old and had no occasion to have illicit intimacy with his elder sister-in-law who was not a divorcee. Had there been any truth in the matter Rashid could have been the last person to have corroborated his testimony on this point. Rashid could have harboured ill will towards Sharafat on account of the alleged illicit intimacy with his wife, under such circumstances the very basis of the petition falls to the ground. The next ground for separation put forward by learned revisional court is of cruelty. This ground also was disbelieved by learned Magistrate who has carefully scrutinised the testimony of Smt. Gulzar and her father as well as of Sharafat, Rashid and Nazir Ahmad. It is correct that any beating of the wife by the husband inside the house is not capable of being demonstrated by positive proof like lodging of F.T.R. or medical evidence in most of the cases. However, in the instant case there is intrinsic evidence overlooked by the learned Sessions Court which shows that wife was never ill treated by the husband. 4. Smt. Gulzar testified that after her marriage with her husband she stayed with him for several times. She visited his house 6 or 7 times. However, in the instant case there is intrinsic evidence overlooked by the learned Sessions Court which shows that wife was never ill treated by the husband. 4. Smt. Gulzar testified that after her marriage with her husband she stayed with him for several times. She visited his house 6 or 7 times. She lived with him for two months and thereafter returned to the house of her father where she stayed for six months. Again she went to the house of her husband and stayed there for one month and returned to the house of her father where she remained for three months. Thereafter she again went to the house of her husband and remained there for one month and thereafter again she went twice to the house of her husband and thereafter returned to the house of her father. It is significant to note that the marriage was performed on 24-5-1980 the petition was filed on 19-7.1983. It was alleged that only eight months prior to the filing of the petition the husband belaboured her and turned her out of his house. The husband has denied it Had there been any substance in this allegation Sharafat having turned his wife out of his house, in a cruel manner could not have gone all the way long to village Anchana to the house of Bashir Ahmed to leave his wife there such send off was fraught with of grave risk to him there was contradictions about the place where the husband left her. In her petition she alleged that the husband left her at the house of her father. Similar statement was made by her father in his examination in chief the case developed at a subsequent stage was that she was left at the outskirts of the village at about 2 P. M. or so. This story was disbelieved by learned Magistrate who found that the lady willingly agent to the house of her father and there was no rift. This story was disbelieved by learned Magistrate who found that the lady willingly agent to the house of her father and there was no rift. The suggestion thrown in cross examination to Smt. Gulzar and her father Bashir Ahmed was that despite the efforts made by the husband and his co-villagers Bashir Ahmed was not prepared to send her back to the house of Sharafat and he wanted to remarry her at some different place and the effort was made by the husband to the lady to keep her with respect and affection at his house and to maintain her. She emphatically declined the same and her father also told that he was not going to send his daughter to the house of Sharafat despite any guarantee they had apprehension. However, there is no evidence on record to show that Sharafat ever ill treated Smt. Gulzar. The copy of the notice which is alleged to have been sent by Smt. Gulzar to Sharafat is not on record to show that there was any veracity in the allegations of Smt. Gulzar. The testimony of three witnesses examined by the revisionist was perfectly consistent. Under such circumstances when the husband as ever willing to maintain his wife at his house respectfully and with affection and there was nothing wrong with his conduct there was no just ground on the part of the wife for refusal to live with the husband. A Magistrate could not have allowed maintenance to the wife when the husband had offered to keep his wife even before the Magistrate, with him and further offered to guarantee her safety also but even then such offer was flatly declined by the wife on the ground of ill treatment which has not been established. It was not for magistrate to speculate as to why petitioner preferred her stay at the house of her father than at the house of her husband. Under such circumstances I find that revisional court was not justified in interfering with the finding, recorded by the Magistrate on the evidence on record. 5. As regards the quantum of maintenance, the wife has alleged that the husband was earning about Rs. 1000/- per month or so. According to the husband his means of income were meagre and he earned only Rs. 150 per month by repair of cycles. 5. As regards the quantum of maintenance, the wife has alleged that the husband was earning about Rs. 1000/- per month or so. According to the husband his means of income were meagre and he earned only Rs. 150 per month by repair of cycles. The husband is a young person who works in Hapur and under such circumstances it is difficult to believe that he was only earning Rs. 150/- per month and not more as testified by the lady. In these hard days a sum of Rs. 150/- per month as awarded to her as maintenance by the revisional court could not be regarded as excessive having regard to the status of parties and the source of income of the husband and his liability, etc. and bare needs of life of the lady. 6. However, in view of what has gone above the petition must fail. 7. In the result revision is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and the order recorded by the Magistrate is restored. Interim order dated 13-9-1984 is vacated.