S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) DISMISSAL of the application under S. 125, Cr. P. C. is the grievance of the wife in this revision. ( 2 ) CASE of petitioner is that she is legally married with opposite party. On 7-5-1977. While both were leading a happy conjugal life, she gave birth to a male child who unfortunately succumbed. Thereafter, opposite party started to ill-treat her and did not provide her food and clothing. At times she was also being assaulted. Ultimately on 3-10-1980 she was driven out from the house of opposite party. Finding no other alternative, she is taking shelter in the house of her parents and is leading a miserable life. Request for maintenance was given a deaf ear. Lastly, opposite party married for a second time in the year 1981. ( 3 ) OPPOSITE party contested application. While admitting marriage, birth of a child and separation after death of the child, opposite party asserted that petitioner did not agree to live with him and she was leading a free and adament life. She deserted him for long one year between June, 1979 and June, 1980 without hout his consent. Coming back to the marital life in June, 1980, she started ill-treating the family members of opposite party and no change of attitude was found in her despite all attempts by him. Ultimately on 7-9-1980, she left the marital home without permission of consent of any family members. Second marriage is also denied. ( 4 ) TRIAL court on consideration of materials, disbelieved the second marriage, cruelty and ill-treatment and dismissed the petition against which this revision has been filed. ( 5 ) MR. Milan Badu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly husband and wife are not under the same roof. In a proceeding under S. 125, Cr. P. C. which is summary in nature, totality of circumstances are to be taken into consideration and piece meal appreciation to reject evidence of petitioner ought not to have been adopted. Therefore, Mr. Badu submits that on the admitted position, that there is marriage and wife is not residing under the same roof. When she alleges, she has been driven out from the house being ill-treated for which there is some corroborative evidence, trial court ought to have accepted the case of cruelty. According to Mr. Therefore, Mr. Badu submits that on the admitted position, that there is marriage and wife is not residing under the same roof. When she alleges, she has been driven out from the house being ill-treated for which there is some corroborative evidence, trial court ought to have accepted the case of cruelty. According to Mr. Badu, physical torture is not the only mode of cruelty. Circumstances by which a wife is compelled to remain away from her husband may amount to cruelty if wife has no contribution for the same. I am inclined to accept the broad principle as submitted by Mr. Badu. Evidence in a case is to be appreciated in light of this broad principle and findings are to be arrived at on the facts and circumstances in each case as revealed from record. ( 6 ) BESIDES, the wife, two neighbouring villagers have been examined. Their interestedness with the petitioner is not even suggested. Hostility with the husband's family has not been suggested. Only on the ground that they are chance witnesses, their version ought not to have been discarded. On perusal of evidence, I am inclined to hold that such evidence is natural. ( 7 ) COMING to evidence of husband to dispute maintenance, D. W. 3 Shyamsundar is an agnate of opposite party. He stated that both spouses were leading happy life for some time. No explanation is given why such a happy life was shattered suddenly. Husband in his evidence stated that wife's brother came and took her away. When his father went to the house of the parents of his wife, father of petitioner told that she is put to over work in the matrimonial home. A happy marriage cannot be brought to a statement at the instance of wife in our society whereas a feeling of equality between husband and wife has not been established. Cause as disclosed by wife's father itself in the circumstances can be stated to be cruelty. When much before the 'petition, husband knew the cause his father immediately ought to have denied the same explaining that each member is working equally and there is no question of over work. At least some evidence ought to have been led in court about equal distribution of work. When much before the 'petition, husband knew the cause his father immediately ought to have denied the same explaining that each member is working equally and there is no question of over work. At least some evidence ought to have been led in court about equal distribution of work. Young girl implanted in another family who has lost her child which every married girl desires, when put to over work, there is bound to be some legitimate consternation. By judicial experience it can be assumed that matter is not as simple as is coloured by the husband. ( 8 ) ON the facts as revealed in this case, I am satisfied that wife was treated with cruelty for which she had to break a happy marriage to come back to her parents. She is entitled to maintenance. ( 9 ) AS regards second marriage, some evidence has been led which is not direct in nature. Petitioner should get a chance to prove the same and on the materials second marriage cannot be outright rejected as baseless. Opposite party should also be given chance to adduce evidence. ( 10 ) INCOME of husband has not been clearly proved. Both parties ought to get opportunity to adduce evidence in this regard. ( 11 ) ON my finding that wife has been forced to leave the marital home on account of cruelty meted out to her, I am inclined to direct that she is entitled to ad interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- (rupees one hundred only) per month till conclusion of the proceeding. I direct that until the application is finally decided, opposite party shall pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month as interim measure which is subject to variation by the trial court while passing the order finally. ( 12 ) IN the result, this revision is allowed. Interim maintenance is fixed at Rs. 100/- (rupees one hundred only) per month subject to determination by the trial court. Impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court with the aforesaid direction. Since there is no appearance for the opposite party, there shall be no order as to costs. Revision allowed.