Judgment :- This revision filed by the wife before this Court is directed against the order of Crl. R.P. No. 145 of 1991, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, rejecting the claim of maintenance, by setting aside the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettur, in M.C. No. 9 of 1989, who awarded maintenance to the petitioner herein at Rs. 350/- per month 2. On the petition filed by the wife under Section 125, Cr. P.C., on the ground of dowry torture, learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettur, after enquiry, directed the husband/Respondent to pay a maintenance of Rs. 350/- per month to the wife/petitioner. Being aggrieved at this, the respondent/husband field Crl. R.P. No. 145 of 1991, on the file of Prl. Sessions Judge, Salem, who in turn allowed the revision, by his order dated 23-3-1992, holding that the wife/petitioner is not entitled to maintenance. Hence the present revision 3. The main reason given in the order of revision Court, for disallowing the claim of the petitioner for maintenance is as follows. The wife requested her husband to set up a separate family, and the husband rejected her request, saying that he would not leave his father and brothers alone, and that thereafter misunderstanding developed between the spouses, and as such, the wife went to her parents' house. On the basis of this, the Sessions Court, come to the conclusion, that there is no justifiable cause for the wife to leave the matrimonial house, and to live with her parents separately 4. It is the case of the wife, that she was not leading a peaceful life in the joint family of the husband, and that she was subjected to all sorts of mental harassment. The facts of her being driven out from the matrimonial house and the torture, were spoken to by other witnesses examined on behalf of the wife. It has also been established, as held by the trial Court, that the father of the husband/respondent attempted to misbehave with the petitioner/wife. The facts of her being driven out from the matrimonial house and the torture, were spoken to by other witnesses examined on behalf of the wife. It has also been established, as held by the trial Court, that the father of the husband/respondent attempted to misbehave with the petitioner/wife. So, the factual findings of the trial Court, have been disturbed by the Sessions Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, by making reassessment of the evidence on factual aspects and by substituting its own view for that of the learned Judicial Magistrate, which is not justified as per the decision of 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 : (1986 Crl LJ 1070) 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision of this Court in Juliet Vasantha v. Antony Marimuthu, 1985 LW (Cri) 107 : 1985 CrLJ 1613 ), wherein it has been held as follows :- "The case of the revision petitioner is that the stand taken by the appellant Court was wrong and that a wife cannot be refused maintenance for the mere reason that she refused to live in a place where it was impossible for her to lead a normal and peaceful life. In support of his above contention, learned counsel for the revision petitioner produced a decision of this Court in M. Ponnambalam v. Saraswathi. In that decision it was observed as follows :-" * It is now settled law in England, America and India, that a wife is entitled to insist that she should not be exposed to the unpleasantness of the relatives of her husband and that suitable provisions should be made for her to live with her husband in privacy ...... at times the husband may have to choose between his parents, mother or his wife. He must come to his own conclusion in his own mind and must not insist upon the incompatible parties like his own wife and mother living together and making life a hell for them .... at times the husband may have to choose between his parents, mother or his wife. He must come to his own conclusion in his own mind and must not insist upon the incompatible parties like his own wife and mother living together and making life a hell for them .... It cannot be said that the wife had disentitled herself to separate maintenance by saying that she would live only with the husband and not with the step-mother added to the bargain .... But tines have changed. Hardships which wives were prepared to endure in the past they are not prepared to endure now and the Court cannot impose upon them ante-diluvian requirements of domestic, Hindu households at the present times. "This decision was rendered in the year 1957 and from then the evolution has been more and more towards strenghtening the right of the wife seeking from her husband a residence of her own separate from that of the in-laws." 6. In view of the above citation and reasonings, I feel that the order passed by the Sessions Court, rejecting the claim of maintenance made by the wife suffers from infirmity, and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order of Sessions Court, is set aside, and the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, awarding maintenance to the petitioner/wife is restored 7. In the result, the revision is allowed.