Judgment :- This revision by the husband is directed against the order of maintenance awarded to the wife and children 2. The only ground that has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, in this revision is that the wife was not able to establish before the Court below, that there was a justifiable cause for her to live separately. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner cited two decisions in Tota v. Musammat Durgi, 1929 (30) CrLJ 861, and Mitanjali Mohanty v. Fanendra Mohanty, 1992 CrLJ 4046 (Orissa). In the former decision, the High Court of Lahore, has held that the wife who declines to go to her husband and live with him in his house without any sufficient reason is not entitled to maintenance. In the latter decision, A. Pasayat, J. of Orissa High Court, has held that the wife has failed to establish and substantiate the allegation of apprehension of danger to her life, and refusal to accept the offer of her husband for restoration of company has not been justified. But, in the very same decision, the following observation has been made :- "Torture or ill-treatment in the husband's house would be sufficient for refusal by the wife claimant to live with her husband. Where a wife cannot reasonably hope to live with dignity with her husband she may refuse to live with him. The offer must be bona fide and the same should not have been made with object to escaping the obligation to pay maintenance. The burden that the wife is refusing to live with him is to be discharged by the husband ...... The object of Section 125, Cr.P.C. is to arm wife in difficulty with a cause of action to get maintenance from her erring husband." * 3. Keeping these principles in mind, it has to be seen, whether the respondent/wife had any sufficient cause to refuse to live with her husband, the petitioner herein. With reference to the same, the finding of the Court below is as follows :- "In my view, the 1st petitioner (wife) is perfectly justified to go to Suleri Kattukuppam, because it was there that the respondent (husband) indulged in all possible bad habits and spoiled his life. The apprehension of the 1st petitioner (wife) that her life will be further spoiled if she goes to Suleri Kattukuppam is perfectly justified. The apprehension of the 1st petitioner (wife) that her life will be further spoiled if she goes to Suleri Kattukuppam is perfectly justified. Therefore, the present offer of the respondent (husband) to take back the petitioners (wife and children) cannot be said to be a genuine or true offer." * This observation, is based upon the following evidence adduced by P.W.1/wife during the course of her cross-examination [Vernacular matters omitted] The evidence of P.W. 1/wife and the finding recorded by the Court below, would be sufficient to hold that there was justifiable cause for the wife to decline to go along with the husband, and live with him. This finding of the fact, based upon the evidence by the trial Court, is valid in law, and there is no justification to interfere with the same, under the rivisional jurisdiction. The Apex Court in Pathumma v. Muhammad, 1986 (92) CRLJ 1070, 1986 BBCJ 61, 1986 AIR(SC) 1436, 1986 (2) Crimes 675, 1986 CrLR(SC) 223, 1986 (2) DMC 208, 1986 (2) HLR 160, 1986 MLR 281, 1986 (1) Scale 603 , 1986 (2) SCC 585 , 1986 SCC(Cr) 212, 1986 (2) SCR 731 , 1986 (1) UJ 652 ), has observed that the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction is not justified in making reassessment of the evidence on questions of fact, and come to a different finding by substituting its own view, for that of trial Court 4. In that view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere with the order of trial Court. In the result, the revision is dismissed.