C. A. RAHIM, J. ( 1 ) AN application Under Section 482, Cr. P. C. was filed by the applicant on 14. 12. 1982 with a prayer-of to set aside the order passed by the Court below and to stay the realisation of maintenance allowance. On that day an order was passed to issue notice to the opposite party. Operation of the impugned order was stayed subject to the regular monthly payment of Rs. 100/by the appellant to the opposite party No. 1 by 10th of every month till further order. By a rejoinder affidavit filed on 1. 11. 1983 it has been stated by the applicant that the son of the applicant expired on 16. 1. 1982. On behalf of the opposite party No. 1 it has been submitted mat since that day, though no order was passed reducing the monthly allowance, still she is receiving rs. 50/-, half of the allowance passed by this Court on 14. 12. 1982. ( 2 ) DURING hearing on 4. 4. 1995 the learned Counsel for the applicant wanted to convert the application Under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to the writ petition on the ground that during pendency of the Misc. Application Honble Supreme Court has decided that the instant Miscellaneous application is not maintainable since the applicant filed a revision against the order of the learned Magistrate before the Sessions Court and the same was dismissed. Accordingly the prayer was allowed and the applicant was permitted to convert the Miscellaneous Application to writ Petition. ( 3 ) BEFORE the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate an application Under Section 125, Cr. P. C. was filed by the opposite party No. 1 on her behalf and on behalf of her minor son. The learned magistrate after considering the case of both the sides, allowed the petition and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/-per month for each of them from the date of the petition i. e. , 28. 8. 1981. The said order was passed on 30. 6. 1982 in connection with Crime Case No. 87/82. Against that order the petitioner (before me) preferred a revision before the Court of the V Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh and after hearing both the sides it was disposed of an 14. 10. 1982 dismissing the said Revision filed by the petitioner. 8. 1981. The said order was passed on 30. 6. 1982 in connection with Crime Case No. 87/82. Against that order the petitioner (before me) preferred a revision before the Court of the V Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh and after hearing both the sides it was disposed of an 14. 10. 1982 dismissing the said Revision filed by the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel has raised two points in this writ petition. Firstly, that there was an offer on behalf of the petitioner to opposite party No. 1 to live with them alongwith the child and he was agreed to bear all the expenditures of both of them. The learned Counsel has contended that the said offer was not considered by both the Courts below. He has relied on me decision reported in 1979 A. L. J. 286, case of Guru Prasad v. Smt. Ram Dulari and Anr. , wherein it has been held that it is imperative on the part of the Magistrate to consider offer of a husband to maintain his wife on condition to live with him and if she refuses to accept the same it is to be seen if there is any reasonable ground for such refusal. Where the offer is not considered, the order must be set aside. ( 5 ) THERE is allegation and counter-allegation in this case. The wife alleged that she was tortured and beaten by the petitioner and when the child was born a further claim of dowry in the shape of motor cycle when not heeded upon she was assaulted. She was taken out and got her into abuse by the petitioner and forced her to go to the house of her parents. The case of the petitioner was that she was not having her mental balance and on occasions wanted to set fire to their house and also their own clothings and when prevented to, she left the house of her husband and went to her fathers place. The petitioner claimed that she went to the house of her in-laws on several occasions but she did not come. Two notices were sent (Ext. Kha 1 and Ext. The petitioner claimed that she went to the house of her in-laws on several occasions but she did not come. Two notices were sent (Ext. Kha 1 and Ext. Kha 2) and he also denied the allegation that he was addicted to drinking and gambling or that he was ever assaulted her and to support his contention he examined himself and P. W. 2 Padamsingh who was held to be interested witness by the lower Court. Nature of the allegation that she lost her mental balance and wanted to set fire to their house and to their own clothings, if true or false, does not impress that the petitioner has/had intention to live with her. The offer to live jointly must flow from a genuine desire to restore conjugal relation but not to force a make believe story which at any point of time or by any body can manipulate it to frustrate me attempt of the other side to obtain maintenance. So the decision cited by the learned Counsel does not fit in this case and I do not find that equity is in favour of the petitioner so that any relief can be extended to him indisposing of the writ petition. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the petitioner it has also been contended that the opposite party No. 1 was having income to maintain herself. The allegation is that she was doing embroidery shop from which she used to earn her livelihood. The evidence in this respect does not inspire confidence. No document has been proved in support of the allegation. The Court of equity cannot act on mere allegation supported by one witness who is highly interested towards the petitioner. The matter has gone into consideration by me two Courts below. I do not find that fresh consideration rejecting the views of the lower Courts can be done after reassessment of the evidence at is stage. ( 7 ) SINCE devoid of merit, the writ petition is dismissed. The cost awarded is Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. one thousand ). .