JUDGMENT S.D. Jha, J. 1.This revision petition by wife and two daughters of respondent-husband, is directed against the order dated 19-3-90 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, reversing the order dated 13-4-88 granting maintenance of Rs. 200/-per month 'to the petitioner wife and Rs. 100/- each to the petitioner-daughters. 2. The petitioner Smt. Kantibai and the respondent Jagdishchandra are Hindus and were married according to Hindu rites. The petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 daughters were born from this wedlock. After the parties lived for some time, the respondent treated the petitioner wife with curelty and turned her out and left her and the two daughters at her parent's place. It was also alleged that according to the information received by the petitioner the respondent without obtaining divorce from the petitioner-wife intended to go for a second marriage. It-was alleged (bat the respondent even though possessed of sufficient means was neglecting the petitioner-wife and the children. 3. The respondent in his reply denied the allegations or that he treated them with cruelty. He also denied the quantum of income alleged. It also appears that the respondent filed a petition under Guardian and Wards Act for custody of the two minor children, which is pending. 4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandsaur, by order dated 13-4-1988 granted maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month to the petitioner wife and Rs. 100/- each per month to the minor petitioners from 22-7-86, the date of the application for maintenance. In revision by the respondent-husband the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, by (he impugned order held that the petitioner-wife was refusing to live with her husband without any sufficient reason and therefore, set aside the order granting maintenance to the petitioner. 5. After hearing Shri D.D. Vyas, for the petitioners, and Shri Ramesh Garg, for the respondent-husband, in my opinion, the revision deserves to be allowed and accepted. 6. The Courts below appear to have unnecessarily entered into the question whether marriage of the respondent with one Vimlabai audits ceremonies were satisfactorily established. The application for maintenance in para 8 only alleged that according to the information received by the applicant-wife the non-applicant husband without obtaining divorce from her, against her wishes intended to go for a second marriage. There was no allegation that he had performed a second marriage or that be was living with a mistress. The application for maintenance in para 8 only alleged that according to the information received by the applicant-wife the non-applicant husband without obtaining divorce from her, against her wishes intended to go for a second marriage. There was no allegation that he had performed a second marriage or that be was living with a mistress. The respondent-husband in para 8 of the reply while not admitting the allegations replied that he had not gone for a second ^marriage nor he intended to do so. In view of this state of pleadings the evidence as to second marriage or its ceremonies would have rightly been inadmissible unless the pleadings were suitably amended, as these proceedings are quasi civil in nature. 7. Be whatever it may, reading order of the C.J.M. as a whole, in particular paras 7 and 8 in juxtaposition with para 12 on which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, relied and which Shri Garg have placed strong reliance, it appears that the story of ill-treatment and cruelty given out by the petitioner-wife supported by Bherulal and Narayan, was found acceptable by the C.J.M. and further that the offer made by the respondent-husband to keep and maintain the petitioner was only an excuse or sham offer. The revisional court would have done well to read para 12 of the order of C.J.M, (which has also part of sentence scored) along with paras 7 and 8 of the order. Thus, there could be no doubt that in the view of the C.J.M. the petitioner-wife and the two daughters were living separately from the husband-respondent for sufficient reasons. In view of this finding supported by evidence recorded by (h" C.J.M. the order granting maintenance to the petitioner should not have been set aside. 8. As a result, (he revision petition is accepted and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside and the order of maintenance of the petitioners restored. Ordered accordingly. The revision is allowed.