K. L. SHRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition filed by the husband is directed against the revisional order dated 6-1-1986 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur in Cr. Revision No. 9 of 1985 whereby the order passed by the Judl. Magistrate First Class dismissing the wife's application under S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') has been set aside and a monthly allowance in the, sum of Rs. 200/- has been made. ( 2 ) CIRCUMSTANCES giving rise to the petition are these. Parties were united in wedlock on 14-6-1982. The living in the conjugal home was not smooth. Ultimately on 5-8-1983 the applicant sent the non-applicant to her parental home at Jobat, Distt. Jhabua and never went there to bring her back. ( 3 ) THE non-applicant filed an application under S. 125 of the Code on, 1-11-1983 alleging that prior to sending her to her parental home the petitioner had taken her to the advocates and a doctor with a view to divorce her and had been subjecting her to cruelty. ( 4 ) SUBSEQUENT to the application under S. 125 of the Code the petitioner has filed an application for a decree of divorce. ( 5 ) THE contention of the petitioner's learned counsel is that it is on record that subsequent to 5-8-1983, the petitioner had addressed letters to the non-applicant and therein there is no mention of any cruelty to her. The contention of the learned counsel for the non-applicant is that in the context of Ex. D-8 dated 8-6-1983 which was got executed by the petitioner in the presence of his sister Bharati and one Pandit Advocate, it is clear that the petitioner already had some grievance against the non-applicant and was interested in getting rid of her. ( 6 ) FROM a perusal of Ex. D-8 it is gathered that thereunder the non-applicant had undertaken that in case within a month from 8-6-1983 she is unable to please the petitioner and is unable to mould her as desired by him, he will be entitled to divorce her and enter into second marriage. It may be remembered that she had not herself left the conjugal home and her letters disclose that she had been desirous of returning back. Ex. It may be remembered that she had not herself left the conjugal home and her letters disclose that she had been desirous of returning back. Ex. D-9 dated 8-8-1983 is the letter written by Dabriprasad, the grand father of the non-applicant inquiring from the applicant if he had any ground of grievance. ( 7 ) INSTITUTION of marriage is necessary for the well-being of the society. A wife is duty bound to live with the husband who has the corresponding duty to protect and maintain her. S. 125 of the Code is designed to prevent vagrancy and destitution and provides a summary and speedy remedy. ''thus it has a social purpose to fulfil and in arriving at any finding in relation to an application thereunder the Courts must look to the substance rather than to the form, must avoid strict technicalities of pleading and proof and must make a realistic approach to the material on record to that the purpose aforesaid is not frustrated. Under the said provision husband having sufficient means is under a statutory liability to maintain his wife. However, as it is her duty to live with him she has no absolute right to claim separate maintenance. Therefore, where the husband offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, she is entitled to separate maintenance only if there is just ground for her refusal to live with him. As to the nature of proof, the decision in Shantabai's case 1985 MPWN 125 may usefully be perused. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, it appears that the non-applicant only with a view to avoid bitterness, did not refer in her letters to the treatment she had been receiving in the conjugal home. The applicant who is a Sub-Engineer in Govt. Service did not accompany the non-applicant to her parental home and did not bother to bring her back. According to the requirements of S. 125 (1) of the Code, order thereunder is to be made on proof of neglect or refusal to maintain the wife who is unable to maintain herself. The petitioner's case that she is unable to maintain herself is apparent. It is not the applicant's case that she is able to maintain herself. According to the requirements of S. 125 (1) of the Code, order thereunder is to be made on proof of neglect or refusal to maintain the wife who is unable to maintain herself. The petitioner's case that she is unable to maintain herself is apparent. It is not the applicant's case that she is able to maintain herself. In the decision in Umadevi's case 1984 MPWN 341 wife's omission to state in her evidence that she was unable to maintain herself was not held to be fatal to her claim. The decision in Gopal's case 1982mpwn 199 is also pertinent. ( 9 ) IT is pertinent to point out that in his written reply to the non-applicant's application u/s. 125 of the Code, the applicant made no offer to maintain her on condition of her living with him. He has admittedly sued her for divorce. In the circumstances of the case i find that she has just ground for her refusal to live with him and the applicaility of the decision in Chandabai's case, 1984 MPWN 394 is not attracted. In Vimlabai's case 1984 MPWN 396 the husband had filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and the order making a monthly allowance passed by the Magistrate against him was restored by this court in revision. ( 10 ) ON a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the conclusion reached by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that the non-applicant had been willing to come to her husband's home and the petitioner has neglected to maintain her is on firm foundation. ( 11 ) WHERE the finding of fact recorded by the lower Court is improper and occasions miscarriage of justice, the revisional Court is duty bound to interfere. Even concurrent findings of fact may be interfered with if they are perverse or are not based on legal evidence as held in Bhagwat Prasad's case 1985 MPWN 481 . I am of the view that on the material on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not transgress his revisional jurisdiction in setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and in granting maintenance to the non-applicant. The impugned order is certainly not liable to be interfered with in exercise of the discretionary revisional jurisdiction. ( 12 ) IN the result, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .