GIRIDHAR MALAVIYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision has been filed against the order and judgment dated 3. 10. 1985 passed by Sri Parduman Kumar, lind Addi. Sessions Judge. Mathura in Criminal Revision No. 63 of 1985 Smt. Rajeshwari Devi. v. Dhiraj Singh, whereby upsetting the order of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Case No. 51 of 1984 under section 125, Cr. P. C. the revisional court directed a sum of Rs. 400/- pm. to be paid to Smt. Rajeshwari Devi as the maintenance allowance by Dhiraj Singh, the applicant. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Smt. Rajeshwari Devi moved an application on 24. 5. 1984 before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Mathura under section 125. Cr. C. P. She alleged that she was married to Dhiraj Singh on 18. 1. 1981. According to her, Dhiraj Singh was not satisfied with the dowry with the result that he used to beat and maltreat her. It was also alleged by her that on one occasion Dhiraj Singh even poured kerosene oil on her with a view to set her on fire. According to her, she was finally turned out by Dhiraj Singh from his house and had refused to maintain her. Smt. Rajeshwari Devi claimed that Dhiraj Singh was a medical practitioner and had an income of Rs. 3000/- p. m. apart from 20 acres of land in village Nekpur, which also yielded an annual income of Rs. 50000/- per year. Consequently, she claimed Rs. 500/by way of maintenance from Dhiraj Singh. ( 3 ) DHIRAJ Singh contested the claim of Smt. Rajeshwari Devi. While he admitted his marriage with Smt. Rajeshwari Devi, be denied all other allegations. His case was that he was the only son of his parents and his wife wanted to leave his parents and live with her parents. He also denied that he earned Rs. 3000/- p. m. from his profession and contended that his income was hardly Rs. 400/. p. m. ( 4 ) AFTER the parties had led evidence before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, he heard the learned counsel for the parties and on an assessment of evidence before him he came to the conclusion that Smt. Rajeshwari Devi was not justified in refusing to go and live with her husband. Consequently, he found that in view of the provisions of section 125 (3), Cr. Consequently, he found that in view of the provisions of section 125 (3), Cr. P. C, she was not entitled to any maintenance. Accordingly, the application of Smt. Rajeshwari Devi under section 125, Cr. P. C. was dismissed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Mathura by his order dated 16. 4. 1985. ( 5 ) IT is relevant to mention here that in the court of the Magistrate, Dhiraj Singh had offered to keep Smt. Rajeshwari Devi with him. Smt. Rajeshwari Devi then agreed to go with her husband provided the husband filed an affidavit to the effect that her life would be secure and there should also be some guarantee for the safety of her life. Dhiraj Singh had consequently filed an affidavit (14-B ). The Magistrate felt that despite the affidavit the wife had refused to go and live with her husband. She was debarred from claiming the maintenance under section 125 (3), Cr. P. C. The Revisional Court, however, found this offer of the husband to be not genuine as the revisional court found that no guarantee bad been given. In arriving at that conclusicn, the revisional court had talked to the parties in its chambers in the presence of this counsel. The observation of the revisional court relating to the offer of the husband being not sincere is as follows: However, the respondent No. 1 did not appear to be sincere in his efforts and with one excuse or the other, he wanted to avoid to continue his wedded life with the revisionist and, therefore, the revisional court is definitely of the view that the offer of the respondent No. 1 to keep the revisionist with him and to maintain her is fake one and the same lacks sincerity. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant bas contended that this procedure adopted by the revisional court in calling the parties in its chamber and discussing the matter with them was not contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure as the entire procedure in respect of grant of maintenance has been exhausted under sections 125, 126, 127 and 128, Cr. P. C. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that since the revisional order could be challenged before the High Court, in the absence of any document in the form of notings relating to what had transpired in the chambers, it was not possible for the High Court to know as to what had really transpired in the chambers and to what extent the observations of the revisional court in that respect were correct. It is contended that this procedure of the revisional court resulted in an additional evidence of which the High Court had no record and as such it is not possible either for this court or for the parties to gauge as to what extent that additional evidence was responsible to affect the mind of the revisional court and whether the observation based on that evidence was legally justified or not. This contention of the applicant appears to be correct. Unlike the procedure prescribed under the Hindu Marriage Act, sections 125 and 126, Cr. P. C. do not prescribe that the Court should make any effort for reconciliation by talking to the parties. In any case, the revisional court ought to have recorded a note in detail duly signed by both the parties as to what had transpired in the chambers, if at all this procedure bad not been objected by the parties and it could be only thereafter that he could have treated it as evidence in setting aside the order of the Magistrate on the point. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, even if the finding of the revisional court on this point may not be sustained, the revisional court was justified in observing that the Magistrate had wrongly refused to rely on the evidence of Smt. Rajeshwari Devi on the ground that she had neither lodged any report with the police nor had she got herself medically examined by a doctor after she had been mal-treated by her husband. The learned counsel for the applicant could not assail the fact that the finding of the Magistrate on this point was certainly perverse. The revisional court was justified in reversing this finding of the Magistrate. There is nothing-else also on the record to indicate why the testimony of Smt. Rejeshwari Devi on this point should not be believed. The learned counsel for the applicant could not assail the fact that the finding of the Magistrate on this point was certainly perverse. The revisional court was justified in reversing this finding of the Magistrate. There is nothing-else also on the record to indicate why the testimony of Smt. Rejeshwari Devi on this point should not be believed. The revisional court considered the matter in detail and I am satisfied that there is enough evidence on record to prove ill-treatment on the part of Dhiraj Singh towards his wife Smt. Rajeshwari Devi even if the allegation of Smt. Rajeshwari Devi that her husband had developed illegitimate relationship with another lady be not accepted, in view of the fact that the evidence on the record establishes ill-treatment on the part of the husband towards his wife, the wife would be justified to refuse to go and live with her husband. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant contended that since the wife at one stage had agreed to go and live with her husband, any allegation relating to the previous conduct of her husband, even if that had amounted to cruelty, should be treated to have been condoned by the wife. This contention cannot be accepted. In this connection, the learned counsel further challenged the observation of the revisional court that non-furnishing of any guarantee could be of no consequence once an affidavit had been filed by the husband himself. I am afraid if the wife wanted a guarantee, then even in the absence of the form of guarantee being specified by her, it could be clearly contemplated to be a guarantee of some other person in the family of the husband that her life would be safe if she wanted to live with her husband. That having not been done, the revisional court was justified in finding that the wife was entitled to refuse to go and live with her husband. Thus granting of the maintenance to the wife by the revisional court cannot be treated to be suffering from any error of law. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant also challenged the quantum of maintenance allowed in this case. It will be relevant to mention that in the High Court Dhiraj Singh had filed an affidavit claiming that as an unqualified doctor, his income per month was hardly Rs. 600/- to 700/ -. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant also challenged the quantum of maintenance allowed in this case. It will be relevant to mention that in the High Court Dhiraj Singh had filed an affidavit claiming that as an unqualified doctor, his income per month was hardly Rs. 600/- to 700/ -. The wife had alleged the income of her husband to be around Rs. 3000/ -. I do not think that the amount of Rs, 400/- p. m. granted by way of maintenance to Smt. Rajeshwari Devi needs any i nte rfe ren ce. ( 10 ) THIS revision is accordingly without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. .