B. L. YADAV, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 15th February 1986 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh allowing the revision in part to the extent that the application of the present applicant, the wife for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code), was rejected. However, the order for payment of maintenance to the minor children was maintained. ( 2 ) IN brief the facts leading to the present application are that the applicant filed an application on 25-11-81 against the opposite party and has also given birth to the children but the husband used to beat her and refused to maintain and she was unable to maintain herself and her minor children, therefore she prayed for maintenance. ( 3 ) THE Magistrate by order dated 21st June, 1984 allowed the application and directed that the applicant would be paid a sum of Rs. 300/- per month as maintenance and Rs. 150 (would be paid to her minor daughtert and Rs. 150/- would be paid to her minor son from 25-11-81 by the husband. ( 4 ) VITH Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 15-2-86 passed in revision filed by the opposite party, modified the order of Magistrate dated 21st June, 1984 to the effect that the order for payment of the maintenance to the applicant, the wife was set aside and each child would be paid maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. ( 5 ) SRI Virendra Saran, learned counsel for the applicant urged that the Magistrate has recorded a finding of fact that the applicant was treated with cruelty and she was unable to maintain herself and that opposite party has sufficient means to maintain the applicant as he was working at the machines of, his father. His income alongwith his father was Rs. 3,000/per month but these findings of fact have been set aside in exercise of revisional power under section 397 of the Code and. thereby the Additional Sessions. Judge exceeded his jurisdiction. His income alongwith his father was Rs. 3,000/per month but these findings of fact have been set aside in exercise of revisional power under section 397 of the Code and. thereby the Additional Sessions. Judge exceeded his jurisdiction. Sri Viresh Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party, the husband on the other hand urged that the finding about the cruelty was perverse and was not supported with the evidence on record, hence that finding has been correctly set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and similarly the opposite party was unable to maintain the applicant and infact he was not working at the machine of his father, hence he was unable to maintain the applicant, the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge was correct. ( 6 ) HAVING heard learned counsels for the parties, it appears that a finding of fact was recorded by the Magistrate after considering entire evidence on the record and circumstances of the case, that the opposite party has committed cruelty with the applicant and as a result thereof she was turned out and was living at the house of her parents and that the applicant was unable to maintain herself and that the opposite party the husband jointly earns Rs. 3000/ per month at the machineof his father. ( 7 ) I have perused the impugned order and I am of the view that the provisions, under Chapter 9 of the Code (Order for maintenance of wife, children and parents i. e. sections 125 to 128) are a piece of social welfare legislation for the welfare of the neglected wives, children and parents. These provisions must receive liberal constructions. In this connection n is better to quote an observation, in Workmen v. American Express International Banking Corpn, as follows: Words occurring in statutes of liberal import such as social welfare legislation and human rights legislation should be construed in the context of the colour and content of such statutes. Those words or expressions should receive broad, interpretation and the imposture of literal construction must be avoided. T ( 8 ) IN the instant case; concept of the cruelty has to be taken - in a broad sense. Security of the wife has also to be taken into account. Those words or expressions should receive broad, interpretation and the imposture of literal construction must be avoided. T ( 8 ) IN the instant case; concept of the cruelty has to be taken - in a broad sense. Security of the wife has also to be taken into account. Keeping in view the findings of fact recorded by learned Magistrate that the husband has committed cruelty with the applicant and that finding being based on the appraisal of the evidence on record and no impropriety or illegality having been committed nor the same were pointed out by the learned counsel for the opposite party, in the order of Magistrate as required by section 397 of the Code, it was not justified on the part of the learned Sessions Judge to have set aside that finding. Similarly the finding about inability of the applicant to maintain herself and the opposite party being possessed of sufficient means and earning a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month alongwith This father, also ought not to have been interfered with in revision. ( 9 ) IN Puthumma v. Muhammad, where the application for maintenance was filed by the wife alleging that she was married to the opposite party, the husband and has got a child from him but the Magistrate found that the applicant was not married to the opposite party but the child as born from: the union of applicant and opposite party, hence that was the illegitimate child and was entitled to maintenance. Revision was filed before the High Court of Kerla and the High Court set aside the finding of fact recoded by the Magistrate about the maintenance being granted to the illegitimate child. On these facts it was held by their Lordships of Supreme Court as follows:the question is to whether the applicant was married wife or whether the child was illegitimate child were preiminently the questions of fact and High Court was not justified in substituting its own view for that of the Magistrate on the question of fact. On these facts it was held by their Lordships of Supreme Court as follows:the question is to whether the applicant was married wife or whether the child was illegitimate child were preiminently the questions of fact and High Court was not justified in substituting its own view for that of the Magistrate on the question of fact. ( 10 ) IN State of Orissa v. Nakula, Sahu and others, scope of revision was pointed out by their Lordships of Supreme Court under old Code (under sections 439/435) as follows: Although the revisional power of the High Court under section 439 read with section 435 is as wide as the power of Court of appeal under section 423 of the Code, it is now well settled that normally the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 439 is to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest or on a point of law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. In spite of the wide language of section 435, the High Court is not expected to act under section 435 or section 438 as if it is hearing an appeal. (See Amar Chandra Agarwal v. Shanti Bosh and Akalu v. Ram Deev. ( 11 ) HAVING perused the order of the revisional Court and that of the trial Court, I am satisfied that the findings about the cruelty, status and the capability of the husband to maintain the applicantt the wife and minor children and the inability of the wife to maintain herself were findings of fact and the revisional court i. e. VIth Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be justified in deciding the Revision by setting aside the findings of fact within the Jour corners of section 397 of the Code. In this view of the matter impugned order dated 15-2-1986 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, so far as it relates to the dismissal of the application for maintenance of the applicant and the amount payable to her, cannot be sustained. Maintenance amount payable to the children has however correctly been modified in revision. ( 12 ) IN the result present revision succeeds and is allowed. Maintenance amount payable to the children has however correctly been modified in revision. ( 12 ) IN the result present revision succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 15-2-86 is modified to the extent that the application of the applicant for the maintenance stands allowed, and the applicant would be entitled to a sum of Rs: 300/- per month as maintenance payable by the opposite party from 21-6-1984, the date of application and the order allowing maintenance to children at the rate of Rs. 100/- per head per month is - maintained. Office is directed to send back the record of the case immediately. .