JUDGMENT From a perusal of the order dated 6.9.1988 passed by the third Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Criminal Revision No. 88/87 it appears that the order dated 28.9.87 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sagar in Miscellaneous Criminal 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 CHHODCHUTTI (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 the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar for reversing the order dated 23.9.81 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sagar do not appear to be justified because the conclusions reached by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sagar after considering the evidence adduced before it do not go to show that the trial Court has reached wrong conclusions and nor can it be said that the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sagar was perverse in any way. There was no dispute that the applicant Rupa Bai was the legally wedded wife of non-applicant Ghanshyam. It stands proved from the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant that she was ill-treated and turned out of the house by the non-applicant and that she was locked in the room and had been made to sign 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, Judicial Magistrate, First Class 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 this regard to applicant Rupa Bai and during her cross-examination. Besides this from the Document Ex. D-l, no inference about divorce having been taken by the applicant can be inferred. Besides this, as regards the Document Ex. D-1, there was no question put in this regard to applicant Rupa Bai and during her cross-examination. Besides this from the Document Ex. D-l, no inference about divorce having been taken by the applicant can be inferred. The learned Third Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in reappraising the evidence adduced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sagar and there was no justification in reversing the well reasoned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sagar. For the aforesaid reasons, I would allow the revision petition filed on behalf of the applicant Rupa Bai. Revision allowed.