JUDGMENT : M.B. Shah, J. The petitioner-wife had filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 160/82 in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 10. Ahmedabad, under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for her maintenance. It was alleged by the petitioner that on 11-5-1981 the petitioner and opponent No. 1 married and stayed together as husband and wife for some time. It is her say that at the instigation of opponent No. 1 husband's mother and sister, the husband started ill-treating Vie petitioner, that physically and mentally she was tortured and false allegations were made against her ; she was abused and informed that she was brought as a house maid for cleansing utensils ; that she was threatened by opponent No. 1 that she would be driven away ; that on 25-2-1982 she was severely beaten and driven away from the house. It is her say that opponent No. 1 was doing business by running a grocery shop in the name of Malaviya & Co. and that his income was Rs. 4,000/- per month. It is further stated that opponent No. 1 was having 18 bighas of land in village Amrutpura, Taluka Dhari, District Amreli, from which he was having income of Rs. 10,000/- per year. She had, therefore, prayed for maintenance of Rs. 500/- p. m. 2. After recording the necessary evidence, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 10, by his judgment and order dated 23rd May, 1983 rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove that she was mentally or physically tortured by the opponent No. 1. The learned Magistrate took into consideration that at the time of trial, the petitioner's father was not prepared to send her at her husband's house. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order the petitioner has filed this revision application. Along with this revision the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that after the learned Magistrate has passed an order rejecting her application, opponent No. 1 had married for the third time one Kashiben D/o. Premjibhai Vallahhai Board of village Kupra, District Amreli Kashiben and opponent No. 1 are residing together as husband and wife and Kashiben was carrying and 'Simant' ceremony was performed as per the custom of the caste. Whatever the facts may be, at this stage in this revision application it would not be possible for me to take into consideration the aforesaid affidavit filed by the petitioner. 3. On merits of the case as they stand, the learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has not at all appreciated the evidence produced on behalf of the petitioner. It is true that the learned Magistrate has not at all considered or appreciated the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner. He has straightaway drawn an inference from some talk which might have taken place before him with regard to the compromise and one letter Ex. 18. In my opinion, before deciding the matter it was the bounden duty of the learned Magistrate to decide it after appreciating the evidence on record. 4. The petitioner is examined as witness No. 1. She has stated that she was treated by her husband as a maid-servant and on 25-2-82 she was severely beaten. Her mother-in-law and sister-in-law thereafter left her at her parent's house in rickshaw. They informed her parents that they did not want to keep the petitioner at their house. With regard to the income, it is her say that the opponent No. 1 was doing business and that his income was Rs. 4,000/- per month. In the cross-examination it is her say that she was not prepared to go to at her husband's house on any condition because she feared that she would be murdered. In the evidence of the petitioner's father he had stated that he and one Vallabh Kurji went to the house of the opponent No. 1 and requested that the petitioner may be kept with them. The opponent informed him that they did not want the petitioner. He had denied the suggestion that the petitioner was not tortured at the house of the opponent Witness Vallabhabhai Kurjibltai has stated in his deposition that the petitioner was tortured by her in-laws and that he went at the opponent's house for compromise but they stated that they did not want to keep the petitioner. Bhurabhai Khodabhai (witness No. 5) in his deposition states that the opponent was staying opposite to his house. Between the petitioner and her mother-in-law and sister-in-law there were constant quarrels. On 25-2-85 the petitioner was beaten by her husband, mother-in- law and sister-in-law. Bhurabhai Khodabhai (witness No. 5) in his deposition states that the opponent was staying opposite to his house. Between the petitioner and her mother-in-law and sister-in-law there were constant quarrels. On 25-2-85 the petitioner was beaten by her husband, mother-in- law and sister-in-law. He has denied the suggestion in the cross-examination that he was not staying in the said Society and that he was giving false evidence because he was related to the petitioner Jayshri. As against this the opponent has examined himself and his mother. The opponent in his evidence has stated that the petitioner was not behaving properly and that she was quarrelling with his mother; she was not preparing meals at proper time she was not cleaning utensils and that she was going frequently at her parent's house. It is his say that she was quarrelling with her mother. In my view, if we take into consideration the evidence of the opponent and the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner, it is clear that there were constant quarrels between the petitioner and the opponent and the opponent's mother. Even the opponent admits that there were constant quarrels. Even in the evidence of Parvatiben mother of the opponent, it has been stated by her that there was constant quarrels between the petitioner and herself. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner had left the opponent's house without any reason. In my view, the learned Magistrate ought to have appreciated the entire evidence in the matter and as he has not appreciated the evidence, I was required to appreciate it in this revision application. From the said evidence it is abundantly clear that the opponent has neglected or refused to maintain the petitioner and as she was tortured by the opponent, she was entitled to reside separately from her husband. On the question of income of the opponent, it is the say of the petitioner that the opponent is doing business of running a grocery shop. Now, this say is denied by the opponent. It is his say that he is serving in the said shop and the shop is owned by his brother. For this, the Partnership Deed is produced on record by the brother of the opponent who is examined by the petitioner. Now, this say is denied by the opponent. It is his say that he is serving in the said shop and the shop is owned by his brother. For this, the Partnership Deed is produced on record by the brother of the opponent who is examined by the petitioner. The learned advocate for the opponent has admitted that the opponent had taken divorce and that he was paying Rs. 200/- as maintenance to his first wife. He has also admitted that opponent No. 1 is paying Rs. 125/- as maintenance for the minor child of the petitioner; Taking into consideration the overall matter, it would be just and reasonable to award maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150 per month to the petitioner from the date of the application. 5. In the result, the revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 23-5-83 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 10, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 160182 is quashed and set aside. It is ordered that the petitioner is entitled to have maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month from opponent No. 1 from the date of the filing of the application i.e. from 2-7-82. It is, therefore, directed that opponent No. 1 shall pay in all Rs. 500/- as cost of the application before the trial Court and cost of this revision application to the petitioner. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute.