V. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) -THIS is a revision against the judgment and order passed on 13-2-1987 by Sri G. P. Srivastava, the then IVt Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur. The learned Judge was deciding Criminal Revision No. 857 of 1986 and setting aside the judgment and order passed on 13-8-1988 by Mr. Janardan Singh the then III Addi. Munsif, Magistrate, Fatehpur. Mr. Janardan Singh was disposing of Criminal Case No. 46 of 1985 and had rejected the application of Smt. Kushma Devi (Kusuma Devi) for her maintenance and for her minor son, against her husband Binde Lal. ( 2 ) IT appears that the case of Smt. Kushma Devi was that she was married with Binde Lal about two years prior to the filing of this application. During this period she was being beaten by the applicant constantly and a demand of Rs. 5000/- by way of additional dowry was being made. He was constantly threatening to kill her and was torturing her. A son was born. On the date of this petition he was 8 months old. Two months prior to the filing of the petition the lady was tied by the husband with a pillar and a licensed gun was pointed towards her and a threat to kill was given: Ultimately she was turned out of the house. Since then she is living with her father. She is unable to maintain herself. The husband earns about Rs. 1000/- per month from grain and cattle business. She, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 300/- for herself and Rs. 200/- for her son. ( 3 ) THE husband filed a written statement. He took the plea that he never treated his wife with cruelty and never made a demand of Rs. 5000/ -. He also took the stand that she was never threatened with gun and all these allegations are false. On the contrary, the wife was constantly pressing him to live separately from his parents and when he refused to oblige her she of her own accord left his house and started living with her parents. Inspite of repeated requests by the husband she did not turn up. The husband is prepared to keep her even now. ( 4 ) IN support of her case Smt. Kushma Devi entered into the witness-box as P. W. 1. Inspite of repeated requests by the husband she did not turn up. The husband is prepared to keep her even now. ( 4 ) IN support of her case Smt. Kushma Devi entered into the witness-box as P. W. 1. Two more witnesses, namely Vijai Singh P. W. 2 and Ram Saran P. W. 3 were also examined. The evidence on behalf of the husband consisted of the statements of the applicant as O. P. W. 1 and one Basudeo as O. P. W. 2. The wifes contention has all along been that right from the time she was married she was being cruelly treated. The husband has been making demand for a huge amount of dowry and was beating her and at one occasion he even tied her with a pillar and threatened to kill her with a gun and ultimately turned her out of the house. In support of her case there is her own statement on oath and she has not been shaken during cross-examination. The two witnesses examined on her behalf are, however, of no avail. Vijai Singh. P. W. 2 proves nothing as he simply says that he learnt from the father of Smt. Kushma Devi that Binde Lal used to beat Smt. Kushma Devi and the father has not been examined in this case. Ram Saran P. W. 3 says that he visited Binde Lals village and had gone to stay with his relation in the neighbourhood of Binde Lal (husband) about one year and 3 months back and then he saw Binde Lal demanding a sum of Rs. 5000/- or a buffalo from the lady on pain of death. He also said that it was in his presence that 10 to 15 lathi blows were given to the lady. In her statement the wife has no where said that she was given lathiblows. Therefore, this story set up by the witness Ram Saran does not find support from the testimony of the lady herself and as regards the demand of Rs. 5000/- or a buffalo this also does not appear to be correct because there is no evidence by the lady that demand of a buffalow was made by the husband at any time. So the learned Magistrate was justified in discarding the testimony of both P. Ws. 2 and 3, as of no avail. 5000/- or a buffalo this also does not appear to be correct because there is no evidence by the lady that demand of a buffalow was made by the husband at any time. So the learned Magistrate was justified in discarding the testimony of both P. Ws. 2 and 3, as of no avail. Even inspite of this the fact, however, remains that a young woman leaves the house of her husband within a very short time of her marriage and there must be some reason for. Her version is that she was being ill-treated and subjected to threats and on one occasion even a threat to shoot her down was made as the husband wanted money from her parents. The contention of the husband is that she had left his house of her free will because he did not agree with her to live separately from his parents. There is no evidence in support of the contention of the husband either. ( 5 ) IN my opinion a married woman having a child of about 8 months would not leave her marital home unless there are pressing circumstances for her to take that recourse, and it appears that the reason given by the lady is nearer the truth. Hence I am in agreement with the learned Sessions Judge that the factum of cruelty was made out and there was justification for the lady to live separate from the husband and to refuse to go back to him. She was, therefore, entitled to maintenance for herself. ( 6 ) THE learned Magistrate did not consider the fact that even if the wife might not for some reason be entitled to maintenance, she was clearly entitled to it for the minor child so long as he lives with the mother and the father did not take steps to obtain the custody of the child. Therefore, out right rejection of the application was otherwise illegal. ( 7 ) COMING to the question of maintenance allowance, it is undoubted that the lady has no source of income and hence she is unable to maintain herself as well as the son born from Binde Lal. She is, therefore, entitled to get a reasonable amount of maintenance for both from the husband. The husband is otherwise well to do. She is, therefore, entitled to get a reasonable amount of maintenance for both from the husband. The husband is otherwise well to do. Even according to the learned Magistrate he possesses 10 to 12 bighas of agricultural land, out of which he produces 70 to 80 maunds of grains. The learned Sessions Judge has taken note of this fact and has granted a maintenance of Rs. 100/- to the wife and Rs. 50/- to the child. Considering the hard times in which the parties are living and the difficult situation due to increasing dearness which the wife and the child have to fact, I think that the amount of maintenance fixed by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 13-2-1987 cannot be said to err on the side of being excessive. It is very reasonable. ( 8 ) UNDER these circumstances, the revision has no force and is hereby dismissed. .