JUDGMENT The husband invokes jurisdiction under sections 397 read with 401 Criminal Procedure Code to challenge the revisional order of the Court of Sessions by which the order of the trial Magistrate dismissing the application for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. was set-aside and instead maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month was granted with effect from the date of application i.e. 25.1.1983. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this Court assails the order of the revisional Court mainly on the ground that the revisional Court almost usurped the jurisdiction of an appellate Court and further wrongly re-appreciated the evidence and came to a conclusion contrary to that of the trial Court. The trial Court in its order held that the cruelty alleged by the wife was in the nature of her being beaten up by the husband off and on. The trial Court reasoned that the wife was unable to state the name of a single neighbour who could have seen such cruel treatment meted out by the husband. No witness of neighbourhood was examined. The trial Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the oath of the wife was wholly uncorroborated on the question of cruelty and that she had gone away to her father of her own will after the father obtained a search warrant and she was produced in the Court. The learned revisional Court in para 4 of its order was wrong when it observed that demanding corroborative evidence from plausible source like that of neighbours is the same thing is as multiplying the evidence. It was not so. It was difficult to rely on the sole testimony of the wife when there was plausible evidence available from the neighbourhood but that was not produced. The revisional Court was wrongly led away by the fact of search warrant having been obtained by the father. It illegally drew a conclusion from those proceedings that the wife was cruelly treated by the husband. The learned trial Magistrate was right in holding that when wife was produced before the Magistrate and she opted to go to her father on her own will and did not return back to the husband who was willing to take her and maintained her as his wife, no case for maintenance was made out. The learned trial Magistrate was right in holding that when wife was produced before the Magistrate and she opted to go to her father on her own will and did not return back to the husband who was willing to take her and maintained her as his wife, no case for maintenance was made out. It was for the aforesaid two reasons that it must be held that the revisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting pure finding of fact in its revisional jurisdiction and that too by wrong appreciation of evidence. For all these reasons this petition succeeds. The order of the revisional Court is set-aside while the order dismissing the petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. passed by the learned trial Magistrate is restored. No order as to costs.