D. K. JAM, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER-ROOPA Bai resident of Ratanganj, Sagar was awarded maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month by the J. M. F. C. , Sagar vide, order dated 28/9/1987 passed in Misc. Cr. Case No. 27/82 and against this order the present Non-applicant Ghanshyam had preferred a revision being Cr. Revision 88/87 before the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar who vide order dated 6/9/1988 set aside the order passed by the J. M. F. C. , Sagar and against the said order passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, the petitioner Roopabai has come up in revision. ( 2 ) ON behalf of petitioner Roopabai it has mainly been submitted that the petitioner had proved the act of cruelty on the part of her husband Ghanshyam and the witnesses examined by her had supported her on this point. The learned Judicial Magistrate after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case had ordered payment of Rs. 250/- per month as maintenance allowance to the petitioner; and that the learned additional Sessions Judge, Sagar had committed an error in reversing the order passed by J. M. F. C. Sagar. It was further submitted on behalf of the applicant that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar had failed to consider that the respondent/nonapplicant even if he has taken the plea of divorce, he will still be liable to pay the maintenance allowance. On the aforesaid grounds, it Was submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge be set aside and the order passed by the J. M. F. C. , Sagar be restored. ( 3 ) NONE has appeared on behalf of the respondent/non-applicant on the date of hearing. ( 4 ) FROM a perusal of the order dated 6/9/1988 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in cr. Revision N9. 88/87 it appears that the order dated 28/9/1987 passed by the J. M. F. C. Sagar in misc. Cr. Case No. 27/82 has been reversed mainly on the ground that Document No. D-1 was executed in the panchayat showed that applicant Rupa Bai herself was taking CHHOD CHUTTI (Divorce) because she did not want to live with her husband and that the said document was signed by Rupa Bai and also number of Panch as. Cr. Case No. 27/82 has been reversed mainly on the ground that Document No. D-1 was executed in the panchayat showed that applicant Rupa Bai herself was taking CHHOD CHUTTI (Divorce) because she did not want to live with her husband and that the said document was signed by Rupa Bai and also number of Panch as. One of the other grounds on which the order of the lower Court was reversed was that the applicant had alleged that the non-applicant had remarried but the same was not found proved by the lower Court itself. The reasons given by the learned Turd Addi. Sessions Judge, Sagar for reversing the order dated 28. 9. 1981 passed by j. M. F. C. Sagar do not appear to be justified because the conclusions reached by J. M. F. C. , Sagar after considering the evidence adduced before it do not go to show that the trial Court has reached on wrong/conclusions and nor can it be said that the order passed by the J. M. F. C, Sagar was perverse in any way. ( 5 ) THERE was no dispute that the applicant Rupabai was the legally wedded wife of nonapplicant Ghanshyam. It stands proved from the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant that she was III-treated and turned out of the house by the non-applicant and that she was locked in the room and had been made signed 3 or 4 blank papers. It was also proved from the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant Rupa Bai that she was unable to maintain herself and, therefore, J. M. F. C. , Sagar, after considering all the aspects of the case and after considering the entire evidence adduced before it, had come to the conclusion that applicant Rupa Bai is entitled to receive maintenance allowance from her husband Ghanshyam. Besides this, as regards the Document Ex. D-1, there was no question put in thisregard to applicant Rupa Bai and during her cross- examination. Besides this, from the Document Ex. D-1, no inference about divorce having been taken by the applicant can be inferred. The learned jjjrd Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in reappraising the evidence adduced before the J. M. F. C. , Sagar and there was no justification in reversing the well reasoned order passed by J. M. F. C. , Sagar. D-1, no inference about divorce having been taken by the applicant can be inferred. The learned jjjrd Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in reappraising the evidence adduced before the J. M. F. C. , Sagar and there was no justification in reversing the well reasoned order passed by J. M. F. C. , Sagar. For the aforesaid reasons, I would allow the revision petition filed on behalf of applicant Rupa Bai. 5. The revision filed on behalf of the applicant Rupa Bai is allowed and the order dated 6/9/1988 passed by 111rd Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision 88/87 is set aside and the order dated 28/9/1987 passed by the J. M. F. C. , Sagar in Misc. Cr. Case No. 27182 awarding maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month from the date of order shall stand restored. The revision stands disposed of accordingly. Revision allowed. .