JUDGMENT V.P. MATHUR, J. 1. THIS revision is directed against an Order passed on 20-7-1982 by Mr. S. S. Raturi, Special Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. The learned Magistrate was deciding Criminal Case no. M-36 of 1980, which arose out of an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure moved by Smt. Sudesh against Om Prakash Narula, her husband. 2. THE contention of Smt. Sudesh in her petition was that she was married with Om Prakash Narula on 17-10-74 at Dehradun. Since after this marriage, right up from the very beginning, the behaviour of the husband was very cruel and he was often giving her a beating. Ultimately she had to take shelter at her mother's place in Dehradun in May, 1975. On 7-8-75 she gave birth to a female child. THE husband however neither took any care of the wife nor of his daughter. Sudesh bas no technical education and is generally in ill-health, and hence is unable to maintain herself, while Om Prakash gets more than Rs. 700/- per month as salary as a government servant belonging to the forest department in the State of Haryana. She however claimed a total amount of Rs. 400/-, Rs. 200/- for herself and Rs. 200/- for her daughter. A written statement was held on behalf of the present revisionist Om Prakash Narula, in which the date and the fact of marriage was admitted. It was however contended that he had never ill-treated his wife. It was also contended that she is a healthy young woman who was passed her Matric Examination and by knitting she can maintain herself. It was contended that; the basic salary of Om Prakash Narula was Rs. 390/- per month out of which he has to spend a lot of money on his younger brother and other family members. The wife is living separate from him for no justifiable cause and is therefore not entitled to maintenance allowance. It was also contended that he has always been ready and willing to keep his wife and his daughter with him. 3. IN May, 1975 he was on duty in Kaleshwar. Because there was a fire in the forest, he had to leave for duty and in his absence his wife was taken away by her mother with all the ornaments and clothes. 3. IN May, 1975 he was on duty in Kaleshwar. Because there was a fire in the forest, he had to leave for duty and in his absence his wife was taken away by her mother with all the ornaments and clothes. The next day he came to Dehradun and was ill-treated by the brother of his wife and was beaten and even his ring and a watch were snatched from him. Thereafter he continued to send his relatives to fetch her back but with no success. For the last time on 4-2-1982 he came to Dehradun along with his Mausi but his brother-in-law threatened him and he had to leave. He lodged a police report in this respect also. Then he gave a registered notice and filed a suit for restitution of conjual rights in Ambala on 17-10-1977. 4. THE only evidence on the record consists of the statements of Smt. Sudesh and her mother. On behalf of the revisionist no evidence whatsoever has been adduced and even he has not entered the witness box. In her deposition Smt. Sudesh Narula reiterated her application version that right up from the very beginning after her marriage the petitioner started to ill-treat her and was regularly giving her a beating and denying her meals and clothes, and his complaint was that nothing has been given to him in Dahez. She also says that in May, 1975, the husband was posted in Kaleshwar and he forcibly took her to Paonta along with some strange persons and against her will. About the ill-treatment she had written a letter to her mother who reached Paonta. Then she, her mother and her husband all returned back to Kaleshwar, from where her mother brought her to Dehradun with the consent of the husband and the whole story about her having left Kaleshwar without her husbands consent or in his absence, is false. In Dehradun her daughter was born who is now six years of age. The applicant is in the Forest Department at Fareedabad and gets a monthly salary of Rs. 700/-. She herself is only a matriculate and keeps ill. She does not know either knitting or sewing and is unable to maintain herself. She also says that the applicant never came to fetch her himself but was constantly sending people for that purpose. His Mausi never came to fetch her. 700/-. She herself is only a matriculate and keeps ill. She does not know either knitting or sewing and is unable to maintain herself. She also says that the applicant never came to fetch her himself but was constantly sending people for that purpose. His Mausi never came to fetch her. On 4-2-1980 of course the revisionist came with one woman with an intention to kidnap the child and this attempt was foiled. In 1975 also after her return to Dehradun with her mother, the husband had come after 4 or 5 days but she had refused to go because she was apprehensive of her life. Considering this entire evidence on the record, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 20-7-82 fixing Rs. 200/- as maintenance amount for the wife and Rs. 100/- for the minor child payable from the date of her petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides. I have given a summary of the evidence that has been brought on the record limiting myself to the consideration of the statement of Smt. Sudesh. Her mother's testimony only shows that Sudesh came with her, not against the will of the husband nor in his absence, but in his presence with his consent. The statement of Smt. Sudesh during her cross-examination that she was beaten and turned out, remains uncontroverted. It is also her testimony that right up from the very beginning since after her marriage she was being constantly ill-treated, denied food and clothing and beaten occasionally. The evidence remains uncontroverted and even cross-examination has not been able to shake her. There are some letters on the record which have been proved and exhibited. They show that the revisionist is very sore about the fact that his wife does not want to return back to him and he has even threatened revenge. I am in agreement with the learned Magistrate that under these circumstances the wife has reasonable apprehension of her life; that she was ill-treated and that she has sufficient cause for not returning back to her husband. She is, therefore, entitled to the maintenance allowance for herself and the daughter. The contention of the husband is that he gets the basic salary of Rs. 390/- per month. This is the contention in the written statement. She is, therefore, entitled to the maintenance allowance for herself and the daughter. The contention of the husband is that he gets the basic salary of Rs. 390/- per month. This is the contention in the written statement. But there is no evidence in support of this contention and everything that is mentioned in the pleadings can not be taken to be gospel truth. Even otherwise also a basic salary of Rs. 390/- per month will make out more than Rs. 700/- per month as total emoluments, because house allowance, city compensatory allowance and dearness allowance have to be added. Under these circumstances the wife's sworn testimony that he is getting Rs. 700/- per month as salary, has been rightly taken to be the basis of the decision in this case by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate. In my opinion considering the difficult times through which we are passing, a sum of Rs. 200/- per month can not be said to be excessive for the maintenance of a person. Similarly Rs. 100/- per month is adequate for the maintenance of the child. As a result I do not find any force in this revision which hereby dismiss upholding the order of the maintenance allowance passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate on 20-7-1982. Revision dismissed.