JUDGMENT V.P. Mathur, J. - This is a husband's revision against his wife and is directed against the order passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi on 23.7.85. The learned Sessions Judge was disposing of Criminal Revision No. 212 of 1984 and vide his impugned order he set aside the order passed earlier by the Judicial Magistrate Jhansi, who had rejected the application of Smt. Hanifa Bagum under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code The learned Sessions Judge in his revisional judgment directed the payment of Rs. 400/- per month as, maintenance allowance to Smt. Hanifa Begum from the husband. 2. Briefly stated, the admitted facts between the parties were that in February, 1980, they were married according to Muslim religious rites. According to the wife for some time behaviour of the husband was good but thereafter he started coming from duty in the night dead drunk and whenever resentment was put forth, he used to beat her, treat her with cruelty and was not caring for her food and clothes. He had an income of Rs. 1500/- per month from his salary and a house in Shivpuri but because of his bad habits of drinking and gambling he was wasting away his entire income in the evil pursuits. He had even squandered some ornaments and essential family articles. The wife was getting economic aid from her father from time to time but ultimately father showed his inability to help her and when she insisted for the husband to mend his ways, he was badly beaten on 15.6.86 at Gwalior and turned out of the house by the husband. The husband also retained the entire Dahez articles and ornaments and in that pitiable condition the lady came back to her father at Jhansi. Since then she is living with her father and has not been cared for by the husband. She then sent a notice on 8.6.83 which was refused by the husband on 11.6.83 and since then she has not been able to maintain herself. She claimed Rs. 500/- per month by way of maintenance allowance. 3. The husband contested the proceedings by filing a written statement. His contention is that he never ill-treated his wife. He had always been caring for her and the whole story of her being turned out after beating is false. She claimed Rs. 500/- per month by way of maintenance allowance. 3. The husband contested the proceedings by filing a written statement. His contention is that he never ill-treated his wife. He had always been caring for her and the whole story of her being turned out after beating is false. He also says that he is neither a drunkard nor a gambler but a devout Musalman following Qurani injunctions which prohibit gambling and drinking. According to him, the father of the wife is responsible for the present situation. He wants that the husband should live as Ghar Jamai with him which the revisionist is not willing to accept. The petitioner was taken away by the father and brother of Smt. Hanifa Begum in the absence of the husband. She is a teacher in a Muslim Girls Madarsa from where she is getting Rs. 200/- per month. In addition she also does tailoring and knitting work and she is earning Rs. 200/- per month from first source and Rs. 100/- per month from the second. The husband further contends that he is willing to take his wife back and, therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance allowance. 4. The statement of the wife recorded by the learned Magistrate is a very important piece of evidence on record. In the beginning during the examination-in-chief, she supports the allegations of the petition but during cross-examination she had to admit that her husband had never misbehaved with her so long as she lived at Shivpuri and at Gwalior and she also says that she came back to her parents at Jhansi after taking permission from the mother of the husband. Thus the entire story regarding cruelty, beating evil habits of the husband and with respect to her being turned out after a sound thrashing is given up. Also there is an indication of the fact that she came back to parents house of her own accord when the husband perhaps was not present because she says that she had obtained permission from the mother of the husband. This is precisely the defence of the husband, who says that she was brought to the parental home by the father and brother separate his consent in his absence. This is precisely the defence of the husband, who says that she was brought to the parental home by the father and brother separate his consent in his absence. In my opinion, the very basis for the separate living is not established at all and the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the wife had no justification for living separately from the husband and hence she was not entitled to any amount by way of maintenance. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, however, appears to have placed reliance completely on an unilateral agreement executed by the husband and left with the wife during the course of the proceedings of this case. It is Ext. Ka 2 and it is dated 17.9.83. The husband, of course, denied having signed this document but both the courts review nave come to me conclusion that inns agreement has been signed and executed by the husband in the presence of the witnesses some of whom have been examined in this case. This is a finding of fact and it cannot be disturbed. It is perfectly justified from the evidence on record. In this document there is an assertion by the husband that he had fallen in to bad habits because of the modern times and as a result thereof his wife became angry and she was also beaten when the 'husband was under intoxication and ultimately in June, 1981 she was again beaten when the husband was drunk and since then she is living with her parents. I am not in agreement with the counsel for the husband that this document should be considered privileged in view of Section 23 of the Evidence Act because it is a privileged document. There is nothing on record to show that at any stage of the proceedings any talks of compromise were actually there between the parties. Therefore, the law laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Smt. Surjit Kaur v. Gurcharan Singh (AIR 1973 Punjab and Haryana 18) will not be applicable to this case. Similarly the decision of this Court in the matter of Shibcharan Das v. firm Gulab Chand Chhotey Lal (AIR 1936 Allahabad 157) will also have no application to the facts of the present case. Similarly the decision of this Court in the matter of Shibcharan Das v. firm Gulab Chand Chhotey Lal (AIR 1936 Allahabad 157) will also have no application to the facts of the present case. In Allahabad case, mentioned above, negotiations were being arranged with a view to a settlement and in view of these negotiations some talks passed between the parties. It was held that they would be deemed to have been without prejudice and Section 23 of the Evidence Act will apply. In the present case, as I have mentioned above, there is not even a single word to the effect that at any stage of the proceedings there was any talk of compromise between the parties or that any time was taken from the court within which the parties desired to come to terms and that in pursuance of such a desire any negotiations were traded between them and Ext. Ka. 2 happened to be one of them. On the contrary, it appears to me that while the case was proceeding, merely to a purchase peace and avoid litigation the husband tried to accept his responsibility by even admitting his imaginary lapses, the existence of which was in dispute, and wanted the wife to return to him and for that purpose Ext. Ka 2 was executed. Whatever has been written in this document is necessarily not true. It is in the nature of admission and from the testimony of the wife itself that admission is found to be wrong. There is nothing on record to show that the husband had ever mal-treated and ill-treated, had ever come drunk and had beaten the wife and the story of her having been turned out after a sound thrashing is absolutely false. This being so, on the basis of Ext. Ka. 2 alone no judgment in favour of the wife could be passed. This document was unnecessarily given undue importance by the Sessions Judge, who ignored the substantive evidence that was brought on the record of this case. 6. A revisional court is not entitled to reduces evidence on the questions of fact which have been decided by the trial court except when the trial Court's findings are found to be perverse or not borne out from the evidence on record. 6. A revisional court is not entitled to reduces evidence on the questions of fact which have been decided by the trial court except when the trial Court's findings are found to be perverse or not borne out from the evidence on record. The learned Sessions Judge has, however, travelled in the prohibited area by doing all that he was not entitled to do. 7. I am of the view that since the wife had miserably failed to prove that the husband had been cruel to her or that she had justification to live separate from him, she was not entitled to any maintenance allowance and the petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Session Judge's order to the contrary cannot be allowed to stand. 8. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The order of maintenance passed in Criminal Revision No. 212 of 1984 by the then Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi on 23.7.1985 is set aside and the earlier order passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi through which he rejected the application of the respondent under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code on 1.1984 is restored.