Judgment : M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are the wife and minor child. The award of maintenance in M. C. No. 1 of 1989, on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Udumalpet, dated 16-9-1989, to the wife and minor daughter, has been set aside in the revision filed by the respondent! husband in Cr1. R. C. No. 69 of 1989, dated 15-12-1990, by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. Hence this revision. ( 2 ) THE ground urged by the wife on her behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter, before the trial Court, for claiming maintenance is that while she was living with her husband in joint family, the father of the respondent/husband, a widower with a bad intention misbehaved with her, and that when she informed this to the husband, and requested to set up a separate family, the husband without heeding to her request, tortured by beating her and in the year 1979, after snatching her thali, he drove her out. Further, she would state in her petition that her husband, married another woman by name Nagarathinam, and gave birth to a child. ( 3 ) AFTER enquiry, on consideration of the evidence adduced by the witnesses examined on both the sides, accepting the case of the 1st petitioner/wife, held that the petitioners were entitled to maintenance at Rs. 300/- and Rs. 200/- respectively, per month from the date of order, viz. 16-9-1989. This order was challenged in revision by the respondent/husband, before the Sessions Court, which in turn allowed the revision, holding that the 1st petitioner has failed to prove her case and thereby rejected the claim of the petitioners. ( 4 ) A perusal of the order of learned Magistrate would make it clear that a through appreciation of the evidence has been done and a correct conclusion has been arrived at by the trial Court, in holding that the petitioners are entitled to maintenance. While holding that there is a justifiable cause for the 1st petitioner to leave the husband and to live along with her minor daughter, the 2nd petitioner, separately, learned Judicial Magistrate also gave a finding that the husband/respondent married another woman for a second time, and that through the second wife, he got a child. While holding that there is a justifiable cause for the 1st petitioner to leave the husband and to live along with her minor daughter, the 2nd petitioner, separately, learned Judicial Magistrate also gave a finding that the husband/respondent married another woman for a second time, and that through the second wife, he got a child. The Sessions Court, while disturbing the finding of the trial Court with reference to the second marriage and the birth of a child through the second wife, gave elaborate reasonings for rejecting the evidence relating to them. ( 5 ) THE Apex Court in Pathumma and another v. Muhammad, has clearly held that there should not be a reassessment of evidence under the revisional jurisdiction, by the revision Court by substituting its own view. However, I do not propose to go into the question of second marriage and the birth of the child through the second wife, in view of the fact that those things are not necessary to decide the issue in this revision. ( 6 ) THE question to be decided in this case, is whether the 1st petitioner/wife has made out a case, by showing a justifiable reasons for her leaving the company of the respondent/husband and living separately, without joining her husband. The emphatic answer of this Court is yes. It is the evidence of P. W. 1, the wife that her father-in-law has misbehaved with her, and when this was reported to the husband, he refused to question his father, and began to torture his wife and drove her out, with the child after snatching thali from her. It is not the case of the husband, that she was able to maintain herself, and that her behaviour towards the husband was not proper. The only ground urged by the husband is that there is no acceptable reason on her part to refuse to live with him. This ground has been taken into consideration by the revision Court, and rejected the claim of the maintenance to the petitioners. For that the only reason given by the revision Court is that except the evidence of P. W. 1, there is no other corroborative evidence to support her evidence and that she has not examined any more witness. This may not be a valid reason, to reject her claim for maintenance. For that the only reason given by the revision Court is that except the evidence of P. W. 1, there is no other corroborative evidence to support her evidence and that she has not examined any more witness. This may not be a valid reason, to reject her claim for maintenance. Though the revision Court was not justified in reassessing and reappreciating the evidence on questions of fact, which have already been done by the trial Court, the revision Court did not even say that the evidence of P. W. 1 is not acceptable. For the mere reason that there is a lack of corroborative materials to substantiate the evidence of P. W. 1, in a case of maintenance, it cannot be held that the wife is not entitled to maintenance. Further more, the observation of the Apex Court in the above referred to decision, would make it clear that the Sessions Court has exceeded its revisional jurisdiction, by making the reassessment of the evidence on questions of fact. ( 7 ) IN this view of the matter. I feel that the order of the Sessions Court suffers from grave illegality and the same has to be set aside. Accordingly the order of Sessions Court is set aside, and the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Udumalpet in M. C. No. 1 of 1989, dated 16-9-1989, awarding maintenance to the petitioners, is restored. ( 8 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed. Revision allowed.