JUDGMENT V.D. Gyani, J. 1. This petition under Section 482, Cr. PC. is directed against the order dated 15.7.1985, passed by the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge Ratlam, in Criminal Revision No. 22 of 1985, preferred by the respondent husband, thereby reversing the trial Court's order dated 11.2.1985, awarding maintenance allowance of Rs. 50/- per month to the petitioner. 2. The only point which has been urged and agitated by the parties is, whether it was open to the revisional Court to reappraise evidence and reverse the findings recorded by the trial Coutr, more so when no such unreasonability is pointed out, which would have called for interference. 3. The finding on the point of cruely has been upset by the Court below on two grounds: (i) that no immediate action was taken, either by the petitioner or her mother, as against the acts of cruelty imputed to the husband; (2) no witnesses from the neighbourhood were examined as witnesses, although admittedly Bhagirath and Jagannath were residing in the same vicinity. Both these grounds are not valid for interference. Firstly, it is not always that for every matrimonial wrong legal action is immediatly resorted to and secondly, considering the nature of the act, the time and place of the commission, it ought to be seen by the Court whether the act or acts of cruely complained of admit of any eye-witness have again lost sight of and that matrimonial offences are not committed in the glare publicity. The revisional Court was palpably wrong in upsetting the trial Court's findings on these considerations. 4. The act complained of are that the petitioner was made to strave for days and days together unless she goes and complains to someone in the neighbourhood or someone noticing her plight tries to know the reason, how can the fact be known to a witness? She had deposed that on being beaten by her husband, she did scream. The revisional Court expects someone to come and say that he had heard and intervened. The wife has deposed that it was a closed-door beating and who would come to see. This part of her evidence has been very conveniently omitted to be considered by the lower Court. 5. The other act of cruelty alleged against the respondent-husband is snatching away of ornaments by him. He admits in his evidence that her ornaments were with him. This part of her evidence has been very conveniently omitted to be considered by the lower Court. 5. The other act of cruelty alleged against the respondent-husband is snatching away of ornaments by him. He admits in his evidence that her ornaments were with him. This admission has not been considered by the learned Judge while considering his denial. His case is that Kamlabai never came to him after marriage, then how come it that he possessed her ornaments? It is not his case that they were entrusted to him for safe custody. 6. The revisional Court also appears to have been impressed by the respondents offer to maintain his wife in case she comes and resides with him. This offer is made in reply to a notice served on him by the petitioner. This notice was served three years after the marriage and the learned Judge observes "has shown his prompt willingness to take his wife. This offer was repeated at the revisional stage, when the trial Court had already passed an order awarding maintenance of Rs. 50/- to the petitioner. The learned Judge has failed to appreciate the context in which the offer came to be made. Could it not be for warding off the liability which he had incurred? Was it not a point to be considered before certifying that it was a prompt offer? What promptness could there be when the wife serves a notice calling upon her husband to pay maintenance and the husband in reply denying allegations offers to keep her. In this connection, the evidence of Rajaram, who had gone to fetch Kamlabai, has also been referred. The learned Judge again overlooked the purpose of his visit. It was not with a view to restitute harmonious conjugal relations, but as is evident from Ex. D/I (the respondents reply to the notice), she was called to participate in the marriage of respondent's sister and niece. Learned Judge has missed the very purpose of Rajaram's visit. 6. 6. The learned Judge has advanced yet another queer reasoning in para 14 of the impugned order. The learned Judge holds "valid marriage should be a condition precedent". If the marriage is invalid, the wife cannot claim maintenance," and this invalidity of marriage is sought to be supported by the fact that there was no consumation of marriage between the parties. The learned Judge has advanced yet another queer reasoning in para 14 of the impugned order. The learned Judge holds "valid marriage should be a condition precedent". If the marriage is invalid, the wife cannot claim maintenance," and this invalidity of marriage is sought to be supported by the fact that there was no consumation of marriage between the parties. One fails to see how could this factor go to affect the validity of marriage? Although it may be a ground for other reliefs under the law. 7. Trial Court has found it as a fact that the petitioner was treated with cruelty and this finding has been upset on wholly untenable grounds. 8. For the foregoing reasons this petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside and that of the trial Court restored. However, there shall be no order as to costs.