Order Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent No.1. 2. This application arises out of a proceeding under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. The respondent-wife filed application for maintenance for self as well as a daughter alleging that the conduct of the husband had forced her to leave the marital home and live the rest of the life with her father. It was also alleged that the husband had contracted a second marriage. 3. The Magistrate took evidence. He did not accept the plea of second marriage. However, by order dated 24.9.91 he directed the husband to pay maintenance to his wife @ 250/- per month for self and Rs. 150/- per month for daughter Sobha Kumari until she attains majority, payable from the date of the filing of the application. The husband preferred revision. The 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan refused to interfere with the order. The petitioner, accordingly, has come to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no evidence of neglect or refusal on the part of the husband to maintain the wife. He pointed out that the petitioner has always been ready and willing to accept his wife. Counsel for the Respondents tried to take us through the evidence led on behalf of the wife to show that there is enough evidence suggesting neglect and refusal. 5. The Additional Sessions Judge has merely recited the case of the parties without giving his own finding. A cryptic discussion, contained in Paragraph-8 of the judgment, cannot be said to be final and conclusive of the matter. Having regard to the fact that the controversy between the parties has not been decided finally by the revisional court, we are of the opinion that the matter should be emitted back for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the judgment of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan, contained in Annexure-2 is set aside and the matter is remitted to him for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 6. We make it clear that the observation made in this order should not be treated as an expression of our opinion on the merits of the case. 7. This application is, thus, allowed.