K.S. LODHA, J.— The petitioner Harbans Kaur had moved an application u/s 125 Cr. P. C. claiming maintenance from her husband alleging that the parties had married about 13 months prior to the filing of this application and they lived together for about 11 months whereafter the non-petitioner took her to her fathers house and left her there. It was also alleged that during the time the petitioner lived with her husband, the non-petitioners sisters used to scold her on the ground that she had brought very little dowry. The non-petitioner also used to beat her on this ground. It was also alleged that he was in the habit of drinking and torturing the petitioner and at times even did not provide her with food. Her case further was that he used to demand for further dowry in the form of hard cash amounting to Rs. 10, 000/-, a radio set, a motor cycle and other articles and when the petitioner showed her inability to comply with his demands, he used to beat her. At last, the petitioner was forced to assure the non-petitioner that on the next harvest, he may take her to her fathers place and there she may get the things demanded by him. The case of the petitioner further was that about 2-1/4 months before the filing of the application, the non-petitioner took her to her fathers house. There the petitioner tried to convince him that whatever her father could have given, he has already given but the non-petitioner got annoyed with her and gave her a blow with a burning log of wood, as a result of which, her body was scorched and her right hand got fractured. The petitioner goes on to allege that after giving her this beating, the non-petitioner told her that he will take another wife and that he has already left her. She also alleged that even thereafter, her father with other members of the Panchayat went to the house of the non-petitioner to request him to take her back but he refused. Her case further was that the non-petitioner had never cared for her maintenance and she has no independent means to maintain herself. On account of the ignorance or refusal of the non-petitioner to maintain her, she was entitled to claim maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and she claimed a sum of Rs. 400/- p. m. 2. Her case further was that the non-petitioner had never cared for her maintenance and she has no independent means to maintain herself. On account of the ignorance or refusal of the non-petitioner to maintain her, she was entitled to claim maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and she claimed a sum of Rs. 400/- p. m. 2. In reply, the husband non-petitioner admitted the fact of marriage but denied the other allegations against him. He alleged that he had kept the petitioner with love and care and was still prepared to keep her with him but she had refused to live with him without any reasonable cause. He also alleged that the petitioners father wanted to keep the non-petitioner as his ghar janwai to which he was not agreeable and when he declined to do so, the petitioners brother Prasan Singh got annoyed and wanted to burn him alive with a burning log of wood on which the petitioner intervened. He also alleged that he, was ready to take the petitioner back and had also taken the Panchayat to the petitioners fathers house but they refused to send her and the petitioner also declined to come with him. He also alleged that the petitioners father had two murabbas of canal land and the petitioner herself had sufficient means to maintain herself, of course, without specifying what those means are. 3. After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner herself had refused without any reasonable cause to live with the non-petitioner despite his offer to maintain her on the condition of her living with him. He was of the opinion that the petitioner had failed to establish the cruelty alleged by her. He was further of the view that in the proceedings u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the learned District Judge had held that the petitioner had sufficient means to maintain herself and, therefore, also in view of this finding, she is not entitled to any maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. He. accordingly, dismissed her application. It is against this order of the learned Munsif & Judl. Magistrate, Srikaranpur, dated 18. 12. 84 that the petitioner has filed the present revision. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 5. accordingly, dismissed her application. It is against this order of the learned Munsif & Judl. Magistrate, Srikaranpur, dated 18. 12. 84 that the petitioner has filed the present revision. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 5. The contentions have been raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. His first contention is that the learned Magistrate has approached the case from a wholly wrong angle and has taken into consideration inadmissible evidence in arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to prove cruelty as any other reasonable ground of her refusal to live with her husband and, therefore, his order is vitiated. His second contention is that so far as the finding that the petitioner has sufficient means to maintain herself goes, the learned Magistrate has simply relied upon the order of the learned District Judge u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which itself was a subject matter of revision before this Court and was not a final order. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner, on the other hand, has supported the order of the learned Magistrate. 6. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions. I shall take up the second contention first. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the revision against the order of the learned District Judge dated 4. 8. 83 u/s 24 of the Act was pending before this Court when the learned Magistrate happened to pass the order u/s 125 Cr.P.C. Now that revision has been disposed of by me today by a separate order and the order of the learned District Judge has been set aside. Therefore, the very basis of second finding of the learned Magistrate that the petitioner has sufficient means to maintain herself has disappeared. 7. Coming to the first contention, it may at once be stated that the approach of the learned Magistrate does not at all appear to be correct and proper. He has rejected the evidence of the petitioner mainly on the ground that she is the petitioner herself and her statement is not corroborated by independent witness and the witnesses who have been produced are her relations. He has further rejected evidence of the petitioner on certain omissions or contradic-tions, which were never put to her during her cross-examination. He has rejected the evidence of the petitioner mainly on the ground that she is the petitioner herself and her statement is not corroborated by independent witness and the witnesses who have been produced are her relations. He has further rejected evidence of the petitioner on certain omissions or contradic-tions, which were never put to her during her cross-examination. A few extracts from the order of the learned Magistrate will bear it out. While beginning to consider the evidence of the petitioner Harbans Kaur, the learned Magistrate observes— ^^eq- gjoUk dkSj ih-M-&1 dk dFku gS fd llqjky esa mldh uuan o lkl de ngst ykus ds lEcU/k esa rkuk nsrh Fkh ijUrq mlds dFkuksa dh iqf"V vU; fdlh xokg dh lk{; ls ugha gksrh gSA mlus U;k;ky; ds le{k vius c;ku esa mldh lkl }kjk ngst de ykus ds ckcr mykguk nsus dk dFku fy[kk tc fd vius izkFkZuk i= esa bl izdkj dk vfHk dFku ugha fd;kA lk;yk us vius tokc izkFkZuk i= esa ;g dFku fd;k fd xSjlk;y dh nksuksa cgus de ngst nsus vkSj lqUnj ugha gksus ds lEcU/k esa mls rkuk nsrh Fkh] fdUrq U;k;ky; ds le{k vius c;ku esa bldh iqf"V ugha dhA mlus izkFkZuk i= esa dFku fd;k fd xSjlk;y us llqjky esa mls Hkkstu rd ugha fn;k] ijUrq U;k;ky; ds le{k vius c;ku esa mlus bl izdkj dk dFku ugha fd;kA lk;yk us vius izkFkZuk i= esa ;g Hkh dFku fd;k fd xSjlk;y llqjky esa mls jkstkuk kjkc ihdj ekjihV djrk Fkk ijUrq mlds dFkuksa dh iqf"V esa vU; fdlh xokg dh lk{; gekjs le{k ugha gSA Lo;a lk;yk us U;k;ky; ds le{k vius c;ku esa xSjlk;y }kjk jkstkuk llqjky esa mlds lkFk ekjihV djus dk dFku ugha fd;kA bl izdkj xSjlk;y }kjk lk;yk ds lkFk xzke eksMk esa ekjihV djuk vkSj ngst ds ckcr mls ijskku djus ds lEcU/k esa lk;yk dk dFku fujk/kkj gks tkrk gSA** Similarly, he has rejected the evidence of the other witnesses merely because they happened to be the relations or residents of her village e. g. her brother Prasan Singh and the residents of her village Jaswant Singh, Gaj Singh and Dungar Singh. 8. 8. While considering the question whether the petitioners hand had been fractured by the blow given by the non-petitioner, the learned Magistrate observes that the petitioner, her brother and her mother who have deposed to this also admit that she had taken treatment from a private doctor but they have not given the name and description of that doctor. 9. Now, a party in proceeding of such a nature is a competent witness and its statement has to be taken on its normal worth and it cannot be rejected merely on the ground that it is a statement of a party to the litigation itself. Similarly, in matrimonial matters, it is only the near relations of the parties or their close friends and associates, who can be expected to be acquainted with the facts relating to the parties and, therefore, their statements also cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are relations or are friendly to the parties concerned. That evidence also has to be considered on its normal merits and de-merits and it cannot be discarded merely on the ground that it is a partisan evidence. It is this aspect of the matter, which the learned Magistrate has completely ignored and has rejected the evidence mostly on these grounds. 10. So far as contradictions and material omissions are concerned, they can be used to discredit a witness only after the attention of the witness is drawn to them and he is given an opportunity to explain the same. Here the learned Magistrate has ignored this principle enshrined in s. 145 of the Evidence Act also and has used the omissions and contradictions without providing opportunity to the witness to explain them. Therefore, also his appreciation of the evidence is faulty. 11. Again the main consideration before the learned Magistrate was whether there was just ground for wife to refuse to live with her husband But the learned Magistrate, has proceeded to consider the evidence as if the cruelty, the ground for the wife for refusing to go with the husband, had to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts as is required for the conviction in a criminal offence. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the approach of the learned Magistrate being improper his order cannot be sustained. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the approach of the learned Magistrate being improper his order cannot be sustained. I would have appreciated the evidence myself but I have refrained from doing so, because the other grounds for rejecting the application viz. that the wife had sufficient means to maintain herself having disappeared on the order u/s 24 Hindu Marriage Act being set aside, the learned Magistrate will have to decide that question also on the appreciation of evidence in this case and he may as well re-appreciate the whole evidence. 12. I, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Munsif & Judl. Magistrate, Srikaranpur, dated 18. 12. 84 and send the case back to him for disposal in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 26. 8. 85.