S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) WIFE is the petitioner in this revision against an order refusing maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) OPPOSITE party has not disputed that the petitioner is his wife. ( 3 ) BASIS of the claim of the petitioner is that she was ill-treated and was driven out from the house of the opposite party since she did not give birth to a child and opposite party has married again. Opposite party objected to the claim of the petitioner alleging that she did not pull-on well with his mother, unmarried sister and brother's wife, created trouble in cooking in the joint mess and she pressed opposite party to get separated from the joint family to which opposite party refused as he happened to be the eldest son and two younger brothers and sister were yet to be married and settled. In such circumstances, petitioner being dissatisfied with the opposite party left his house voluntarily and claimed that she would come back only when opposite party gets separated from his parents. ( 4 ) PETITIONER examined three witnesses including herself. Opposite party examined two witnesses including himself and has proved a settlement by the committee of his caste men which has been marked as Ext. A. Learned Magistrate disbelieved the allegation of cruelty and second marriage of opposite party. Accordingly, the application of the petitioner was rejected. ( 5 ) CRUELTY is not confined to physical torture. Whether the behaviour of one meted out to another amounts to cruelty would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case based on materials on record. In the present case there is no dispute that the petitioner does not bear any child despite her marriage with opposite party for a long period. Opposite party suggested to the petitioner in cross-examination that for curing her from barrenness medical aid was rendered. This was denied by the petitioner. Opposite party has not adduced any evidence in support of the medical treatment. Thus, it can safely be inferred that the members of the family were conscious of the defect in the petitioner and petitioner had also knowledge that she is not able to fulfil the desire of the family members in that regard. This was denied by the petitioner. Opposite party has not adduced any evidence in support of the medical treatment. Thus, it can safely be inferred that the members of the family were conscious of the defect in the petitioner and petitioner had also knowledge that she is not able to fulfil the desire of the family members in that regard. When petitioner was not being treated to have the defect cured, any misunderstanding with her would give rise in her mind that on account of this defect she is not treated well. There is clear material in Ext. A that there was misunderstanding for which committee of caste men had to adjudicate the dispute. In that meeting father of opposite party pleaded his inability to resolve the difference on account of the fact that both the parties were not obeying him. Opposite party in his evidence has also stated that the petitioner was not pulling on well with his mother and sister. The nature of the dispute has not been clearly explained by the opposite party to assess in the background of this case whether the petitioner is responsible for the dispute. Even if the case of the opposite party that petitioner insisted that she would hot remain with him unless he is separated is accepted in the circumstance where the petitioner being childless long after the marriage is not rendered medical assistance to cure the defect, if any, and there is perpetual dispute between at least the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law in a low income group family, the proposal for separate living to get rid of the dispute cannot be said to be wholly unreasonable. Assurance of the caste committee as revealed from Ext. A that the husband-opposite party would not treat the petitioner with cruelty and they would take the responsibility for the same is a significant revelation to infer that there is some truth in the allegation of the petitioner that there was cruelty. ( 6 ) I would have made an endeavour for reconciliation, in case opposite party would have appeared. In spite of valid service of notice he has not, however, appealed. ( 7 ) A clear picture of the economic condition of the opposite party has not been given. ( 6 ) I would have made an endeavour for reconciliation, in case opposite party would have appeared. In spite of valid service of notice he has not, however, appealed. ( 7 ) A clear picture of the economic condition of the opposite party has not been given. However, there cannot be any doubt that for a woman to give her residence and to meet the minimum necessities of life for her maintenance, a sum of Rs. 10/- per day would not be more than enough. In such circumstances, I am inclined to assess that the petitioner requires Rs. 300/- per month for the purpose of separate residence and maintenance. In the absence of any evidence that members of the family at times starve on account of want, it can safely be concluded that two square meals a day were available to each members of the family which should be made available to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a monthly maintenance of Rs. 300/- from the date of the order of the trial court until the same is rescinded or otherwise modified by enhancing the sum on subsequent application. ( 8 ) IN the result, the criminal revision is allowed. Revision allowed. .