N. B. ASTHANA, J. ( 1 ) THE revisionist who is admittedly the wife of Opp. Party No. 3 Ganesh Singh filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital claiming maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month alleging that she was married about 20 years ago. She remained with her husband for about 11 years and performed her marital obligations. No child could however be borne out of this wedlock on account of which her husband started harassing her on small matters. He developed illicit relations with the sister of the wife of his elder brother. Subsequently he married her and kept her in the same house. The revisionist objected to it whereupon he started treating her cruelly and forced her to leave the house after 3 years of his second marriage. She then started living with the parents. Her husband was employed in the Army. He is getting Rs. 900/- per month as pension and carrying on a shop which gives him an income of Rs. 500/- per month and is also earning Rs. 1200/- per month from his cutlivation. She claimed herself to be an illiterate lady, unable to earn her livelihood. ( 2 ) THE husband contested this application stating that in the year 1970 in his absence the revisionist left his house alongwith ornaments etc. Upon coming on leave he went to bring his wife but she did not come. In the year 1972 he again went to his in-laws place to bring his wife. His father-in-law threatened him that in case he again came to his house he would be shot dead. In the year 1973 he married Smt. Amba. Out of this wedlock four children were born. He is ill and since the year 1985 is under treatment. He gets Rs. 500/- per month as pensi6n which is barely necessary to meet his medical bill. He has no other source of income. The revisionist is living separately out of her own Will for the last about 17 or 18 years and is therefore not entitled to claim any maintenance allowance. He also alleged that in the year 1973 the revisionist married some person of village Haliu and for that reason also she is not entitled for maintenance allowance. ( 3 ) BOTH the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. He also alleged that in the year 1973 the revisionist married some person of village Haliu and for that reason also she is not entitled for maintenance allowance. ( 3 ) BOTH the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that it has not been established that the revisionist has married a second time in the year 1973. Admittedly, the husband has married Smt. Amba and this is sufficient justification for the revisionist to live separately from her husband. It disbelieved the husbands contention that the revisionist is living separately since the year 1970. The Trial Court further came to the conclusion that from the material placed on record, it has not been established that the revisionist has any source of income. It further came" to the conclusion that the husband has cultivation, is maintaining a second wife and their four children and therefore he has sufficient means to pay the maintenance allowance. Taking all the circumstances into consideration the trial Court awarded Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance allowance from the date of application. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by this judgment and order, the husband filed Criminal Revision No. 71/92 which was allowed on 18. 8. 1993 by I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nainital. The judgment and order passed by the Trial Court were set aside and her application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. was dismissed. Aggrieved by it she has come to this Court in revision. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned Counsel of the parties and have perused the record. The Revisional court was of the opinion that after the marriage of the husband with Smt. Amba, the revisionist left her husband and lived separately for a long time. She did not make any application for maintenance during the period of 9 years which disentitles her to claim maintenance from her husband. The revisionist admitted in her statement that she applied for loan to purchase she-buffalo. According to the Revisional Court this shows that she is able to maintain herself. The Revisional Court was further of the opinion that no evidence has been placed on record to establish that she was cruelly treated by her husband and for that reason she started living at her fathers place. She is, therefore, not entitled for maintenance. The revision was, therefore, allowed. The Revisional Court was further of the opinion that no evidence has been placed on record to establish that she was cruelly treated by her husband and for that reason she started living at her fathers place. She is, therefore, not entitled for maintenance. The revision was, therefore, allowed. According to the findings of the Revisional Court the revisionist remained with her husband for about 11 or 12 years after his second marriage. The Revisional Court has however not given any reason as to why she would have left her husband after 10 or 11 years of his second marriage unless there was some convincing reason for it. No such reason has been given either by her husband or by the Trial Court. If she remained with her husband even after his second marriage for about 10 or 11 years then she would not have left him without any convincing reason. It clearly shows that she was treated cruelly and was turned out of the house, and that she did not leave him on her own. The argument of the revisionist that the fact that she lived with her husband for about 11 or 12 years after marriage would indicate that she was consenting party to the second marriage. There is no evidence of consent on record. The case of the husband was that she went to her fathers place in the year 1970 and that she did not return back and for that reason he married in the year 1973. The husband neither says that the revisionist lived with them after the second marriage nor he says that the revisionist acquieseed in his second marriage. The Revisional Court recorded findings in favour of the husband which he did not even plead. Simply from the fact that she did not claim maintenance allowance for a number of years, it cannot be said that she was not entitled to maintenance allowance. The conclusion of the Revisional Court that she had been living with other man and getting support from him and for that reason did not claim maintenance allowance is not borne out from the material on record. The husband did not even indicate the name of the man with whom the revisionist is alleged to have married but still the Revisional Court came to the conclusion that she was getting support from another man. The husband did not even indicate the name of the man with whom the revisionist is alleged to have married but still the Revisional Court came to the conclusion that she was getting support from another man. The findings recorded by the Revisional Court are perverse and not supported by the evidence placed on record. Such findings cannot be sustained. ( 6 ) THE Trial Court upon a careful consideration of the evidence recorded the findings in the case. There was no error in the judgment. The Revisional Court was not justified in making reassessment of evidence and substitute its own findings in place of the findings of the magistrate. The Magistrate has recorded findings about the cruelty status and capability of the husband to maintain the wife and the inability of the wife to maintain herself. The lower revisional Court was not justified in deciding the revision by setting aside those findings of facts within the four corners of Section 397 Cr. P. C. The revision has therefore to be allowed. ( 7 ) THE Opp. Party No. 3 is a retired person. He is getting pension and has a large family to support. In the facts and circumstances the maintenance allowance of Rs. 350/- from the date of application would meet the ends of justice. The revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and order are set aside. The revisionist is granted maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month from the date of application. .