JUDGMENT G.C. Gupta, J. 1. The applicant feels aggrieved by the order dated 18th May, 1989 passed by Shri N.K. Jain. Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No. 26 of 1989 affirming the order dated 19.11.1988 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Frist Class, Bhopal in Misc. Cr.Case No. 10 of 1987 dismissing applicant's application for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. and has approached this Court for setting aside the same, in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. That the applicant and the non-applicant are legally married husband and wife is not in dispute. That the applicant wife gave birth to a femali child on 1.6.1985 is also admitted. The applicant had gone to her father's house few days before the birth of the child and is since then living there with her parents. It appears that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated during this period, as a result of which notices and counter notices had been served by and against both of them. The applicant filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate on 21.2.1986 alleging refusal and neglect of the non-applicant to maintain her and the child and, therefore, prayed for ah order of maintenance. The non-applicant in his written statement denied that he was refusing or neglecting to maintain the applicant. According to the non-applicant, the applicant was, without his permission and consent, leaving, away from him and unjustifiably refusing to come to him. It appears that the non-applicant remained absent after filing his written statement and was proceeded ex parte. Applicant examined herself and her father to prove her claim. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the applicant has not been able to prove that the non-applicant is refusing to accept her as his wife and maintain her. According to the learned Magistrate, the applicant was leaving away from him without any justifiably reason. In the opinion of the learned 'Magistrate, it was necessary for the applicant to say as to why she was Jiving separately. On this finding, the claim of the applicant for maintenance was dismissed. The applicant preferred revision against the same before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate is based on appreciation of evidence and is not perverse. On this finding, the claim of the applicant for maintenance was dismissed. The applicant preferred revision against the same before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate is based on appreciation of evidence and is not perverse. Such a finding, according to the learned Sessions Judge, cannot be up-set in exercise of re visional jurisdiction. According to the learned Judge, even if two views of the matter be possible, the revisional Court will not interfere with the same. That is how the revision of the applicant has been dismissed and the, matter is in this Court. 3. The question requiring consideration of this Court is whether the learned Magistrate is justified in holding that the applicant has failed to prove refusal or neglect of the non- applicant to maintain her. It may, as a necessary consequence, be examined if the applicant was living separately from the non-applicant for good reasons. As noticed earlier, the non-applicant had been proceeded ex parte and hence there is no evidence on his behalf. In spite of it, the burden of the proving all requirements of section 125 Cr.P.C. being on the applicant, she will have to establish the same by leading acceptable evidence in that behalf. The applicant as P.W. 1 has stated that the non-applicant was treating her with cruelty and had made false allegation of bad character. According to her, cruelty started immediately after marriage. She was beaten and not given food and drink. She, therefore, sent for her father and went with him for delivery. The non-applicant agreed to send her with her father. After the birth of the child on 8.6.1985, the non-applicant did not go to the hospital to see the child. Thereafter, he sent notices, which have been filed as Exhibits A/1 to A/17. She further stated that she is ready and willing to go with the non-applicant, but the non-applicant had never come to take her. She would go only if the non-applicant would take her with honour and also .give a guarantee that he will not kill her. Thereafter, he sent notices, which have been filed as Exhibits A/1 to A/17. She further stated that she is ready and willing to go with the non-applicant, but the non-applicant had never come to take her. She would go only if the non-applicant would take her with honour and also .give a guarantee that he will not kill her. This evidence has not been relied upon by the learned Magistrate, because there was no allegation to that effect in the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. This Court has gone through the application and finds .nothing to justify the applicant's statement about cruelty before the birth of the child. In fact, the entire application is based on the allegation that the non-applicant bad not come to take back the applicant and had given notices making false allegations/There is no reason why if the applicant has been treated with cruelty before the birth of her child, she should not have alleged it in the application. Apparently, it is an afterthought. Under the circumstances, if she has been disbelieved on this account, she has to blame himself. 4. Notice (Ex. A/I) dated 9.5.1985 admittedly -served on the applicant indicates that the non-applicant had gone to bring "her, but the parents of the applicant had refused to send her. This notice would indicate that the non-applicant was eager to have the applicant. Reply to this notice (Ex. A/3) would also indicate that the applicant's father was willing to send her after the birth of the child. The child, as noticed earlier, was born on 8.6.1985. Notice (Ex. A/7) dated 10.6.1985 would indicate that the applicant's father was unwilling to send her to the non-applicant as long as the non-applicant did not behave properly. The notice (Ex. A/9) requires the applicant to return to the non-applicant within three days on receipt thereof. It is surprising that reply to this notice (Ex. A/10) does not show the inclination of the applicant's mother to send her back to the non-applicant. Subsequent exchange of notices indicate allegations and counter-allegations by the parties. Last letter (Ex. A/17) requires the applicant to return within two weeks, failing which the non-applicant would be free to take a second wife. All this documentary evidence justifies the view that the non-applicant had been willing to accept her as his wife and asking her to return unconditionally. Subsequent exchange of notices indicate allegations and counter-allegations by the parties. Last letter (Ex. A/17) requires the applicant to return within two weeks, failing which the non-applicant would be free to take a second wife. All this documentary evidence justifies the view that the non-applicant had been willing to accept her as his wife and asking her to return unconditionally. The applicant had taken chance and refused to return. In such a situation, the conclusion of the learned trial Magistrate that she was leaving away from the non-applicant without any justification does not appear to be unjustified. In this view of the matter, the orders of the Courts below are held to be fully justified needing no interference. 5. Application fails and is dismissed.