JUDGMENT This criminal revision is directed against the Order dated 1.2.S9 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in criminal revision No. 91186 whereby he allowed the maintenance allowance to the non-applicant reversing the Order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal. The non-applicant moved an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal for grant of maintenance allowance on the ground that she was married to the applicant according to the Hindu custom. After the marriage she went to her matrimonial home and lived there happily with the applicant but sometime there after the applicant started neglecting her and she was subjected to mental and physical torture and ultimately she was turned out from his ,matrimonial home by the applicant, husband and thereafter she was living with her parents. The applicant in his reply admitted that the non-applicant is his legally wedded wife but he denied the allegation that he ever tortured the non-applicant in any manner. The learned Judicial Magistrate on consideration of the evidence has held that the non-applicant had voluntarily withdrawn herself from the association of the applicant. Therefore, she was not entitled to any maintenance allowance and rejected the application. As against that the non-applicant preferred revision before the Sessions Judge, Bhopal, who reversed the order of the Judicial Magistrate and granted maintenance allowance to the non-applicant to Rs. 250/- per month from the date of the order. Shri D.K. Dixit learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant was all along willing and still willing to maintain the non-applicant, his wife but the non-applicant has voluntarily withdrawn herself from the association of the applicant. Therefore, the requirement of section 125 Cr.P.C. is not full filled. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the non-applicant on the other hand has contended that from the letter of the non-applicant, Annexure MA-1 and other letters also addressed to the applicant, it would appear that the finding of the learned judicial magistrate refusing to grant maintenance allowance was not justified. The non-applicant in the letter had stated that under some compelling circumstances she had left her matrimonial home, and she was willing to return to the association of the applicant. The non-applicant in the letter had stated that under some compelling circumstances she had left her matrimonial home, and she was willing to return to the association of the applicant. On perusal of the letters Ex; NA-l and other letters it would appear that non-applicant has shown great respect and regard to her husband and she had begged to be excused for leaving his house without his permission. As the non-applicant has, however, stated that she had left the home under the compelling circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate would appear to overlook to consider the letters of the non-applicant. This Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction cannot go into the facts and reauthorise the evidence adduced by the parties. It is well settled that the reassessment of evidence is beyond the scope of revisional Court where there is a proper appreciation of the evidence. The scope and ambit in the revision is not comprehensive as in appeal. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. There is no merit in the application. Accordingly it is dismissed.