ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) THE order passed by learned Sub-Divisional -Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack (in short, the 'sdjm') rejecting petitioner's petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'code'), is assailed in this revision application. ( 2 ) FACTS situation as portrayed by the petitioner is to the following effect: according to Hindu rites and customs the petitioner and opposite party No. 1 were married on 15-2-1989. The opposite party No. 2 is the father of opposite party No. 1. A few days after marriage, both opposite parties and other members of their family treated the petitioner with cruelty, and on 19-3-1989 the opposite parties left the petitioner in the house of one Kanhu Charan who sent a telegram to the father of the petitioner which was received by the latter on 21-3-1989, whereafter the petitioner was brought back; and since 23-3-1989 she is continuing to live with her father. It is asserted that she had no source of income and that the opposite party No. 1 having sufficient means has neglected and / or refused to maintain her, and as such, she is entitled to an order under Section 125 of the Code. The application was resisted by the opposite parties, on the ground that there was no ill-treatment as alleged and on the contrary, she had volunterily withdrawn from the company of opposite party No. 1 and therefore, an order under Section 125 of the Code is not available to be passed in her favour. ( 3 ) PETITIONER examined herself as P. W. 1, while opposite party No. 1 examined himself as OPW 1 and the aforesaid Kanhu Charan was examined as OPW-2. The application was rejected by the learned SDDM, on the ground that there was no ill-treatment as alleged and that the petitioner was not entitled to maintenance as she has left the house of her husband without any reason or basis. ( 4 ) THE primary stand of the petitioner in this application is that the conclusion of learned SDDM is erroneous. He has overlooked the fact that in order to disentitle a claimant, the offer of the husband should be established to be bona fide where a wife apprehends danger to her life, the offer cannot be said to be as bona fide one. He has overlooked the fact that in order to disentitle a claimant, the offer of the husband should be established to be bona fide where a wife apprehends danger to her life, the offer cannot be said to be as bona fide one. Further, conclusion of the learned SDDM that there was no evidence to prove apprehension of danger to life is on an erroneous interpretation of evidence on record. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however, submitted that learned SDJM has rightly concluded about the non-entitlement of the petitioner. ( 5 ) THE objection of Section 125 of the Code is to provide a summary remedy to save defendants from destitution and vagrancy, and thus to serve to social purpose apart from an independent obligation of the parties under their personal law. Since the object is to prevent vagrancy or destitution by means of a summary remedy before a Magistrate, jurisdiction is preventive rather then remedial or punitive, Foundation of an order under Section 125 is the neglect or refusal of the opposite party to maintain his wife, child or parents. "refuse" means a failure to maintain or denial of the obligation to maintain after demand. "neglect" on the other hand, means a default or omission to maintain, in the absence of a demand. Neglect or refusal may be implied from the conduct of a party and need not be a formal refusal. Refusal or neglect on the part of husband may be proved not only by express words, but also by his conduct. ( 6 ) DEFENCE of opposite party No. 1 is that because wife-claimant has refused to live with him, she is not entitled to an order under Section 125 of the Code. Under sub-section (4), a wife who without sufficient reason, refuses to live with her husband is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125. Neither in sub-section (4) which deals with such a situation nor in sub-section (5), the Code attempts to enumerates what would be sufficient cause for a wife-claimant to refuse to live with her husband and yet succeed in her claim for maintenance. It is left to be objectvely determined by the Court having regard to the circumstances of case and social ideas and background facts. It is left to be objectvely determined by the Court having regard to the circumstances of case and social ideas and background facts. The Legislature has not exhaustively enumerated the grounds which would furnish a sufficient cause for non-payment of maintenance ordered under sub-section (1) beyond the three grounds which are mentioned in sub-section (4 ). Under sub-section (3) if the wife-claimant has just ground for such refusal, she would be entitled to have an order of maintenance enforced notwithstanding the offer of husband to maintain her on condition of her living with him. ( 7 ) TORTURE or ill-treatment in the husband's house would be sufficient for refusal by the wife-claimant to live with her husband, even though husband may not be guilty personally. Where a wife cannot reasonably hope to live with dignity with her husband she may refuse to live with him. The offer must be bona fide and the same should hot have been made with object to escaping the obligation to pay maintenance. The burden that the wife is refusing to live with him is to be discharged by the husband. But when once that is proved, it is for the wife to show that there are reasons for her living spart from the husband. The object of Section 125 is to arm wife in difficulty with a cause of action to get maintenance from her erring husband. Second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 125 is also relevant. Even though a person offers to maintain his wife with condition of her living with him and she refused to live with him, the Magistrate may consider ground of refusal as stated by wife-claiment and make an order under Section 125 of the Code notwithstanding such offer if held a satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. ( 8 ) JUDGED in the aforesaid background, it has to be seen whether petitioner had any sufficient cause to refuse to live with opposite party No. 1 in spite of latter's offer. On analysis of evidence of the witnesses, learned SDJM came to hold that there was no reason for her to refuse the offer. From the evidence of the petitioner, it appears that there was no demand of any specific dowry by her mother-in-law. On analysis of evidence of the witnesses, learned SDJM came to hold that there was no reason for her to refuse the offer. From the evidence of the petitioner, it appears that there was no demand of any specific dowry by her mother-in-law. Plea that she was being ill-treated because of lack of beauty was also not accepted in the absence of any specific pleading. The conduct of the opposite party No. 1 in sending money by money orders was also held to be indicative of his intention to have company of his wife. This aspect should not have received importance because the money orders were sent after initiation of the proceedings. However, analysis of the evidence shows that the petitioner had left the house of the opposite parties without justifiable reason. She has failed to establish and substantiate the allegation of apprehension of danger to her life. Refusal to accept the offer of her husband for restoration of company has not been justified. ( 9 ) IN that view of the matter, order of learned SDJM is irreversible. The revision application fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.