R. BHATTACHARYYA, J. ( 1 ) - This criminal revision is directed against an order dated 8. 9. 1984 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Uttar Dinajpur in Raigunge in Criminal Revision Case No. 59 of 1994 reversing the order dated 30. 9. 1993 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in Case No. UR-19 of 1991. ( 2 ) THOUGH, the facts have been detailed in the complaint, yet to understand the contention between the parties, I gave a brief resume of the facts. ( 3 ) THERE is an adage in English that the marriage is made in heaven. It is for the Ecclesiastical C. I. D. to discover the result thereof. But, it is not for the human being to make an enquiry of the same as we are concerned with the post-marital state of affairs at the mundane level. We always pine for substantive materials to adjudge the claim, but do not make any chase of the subject, the object of which is intangible. ( 4 ) THE case reveals the chronic of the marital life, where wife basing become the subject matter of the dispute, which has been exploited by the wife to secure relief within the sweep of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Both the petitioner and the respondent were married according to Hindu rites and customs. Two issues were born of the loins of the petitioner of which one remains with the husband while the other remains with the mother, the petitioner. The life between the two was embittered for the behaviour of the husband who not only inflicted cruel treatment on her, but also supported by the members of his family. She was abandoned not only by the husband but also by the family members who did not make any enquiry about the state of health of the minor child begotten by her. She was turned out of the matrimonial home. The husband has sufficient means to earn his livelihood. It put off the maintenance of the wife and the child just out of the napkin. ( 5 ) THE husband contested the claim denying his liability about the offence and misconduct complained of. The petitioner is a shrew which tore the marital life who gave trivialities as premium to lash the marital life of the two. It put off the maintenance of the wife and the child just out of the napkin. ( 5 ) THE husband contested the claim denying his liability about the offence and misconduct complained of. The petitioner is a shrew which tore the marital life who gave trivialities as premium to lash the marital life of the two. She was in matrimonial home after she was discharged from the hospital who all along craved for a separate residence which the husband did not agree. It led to a conflagration in the marital life. She was never a victim of the neglect as he remitted money which the wife refused without rhyme or reason. The matrimonial suit instituted by the husband had to be withdrawn upon compromise between the parties. ( 6 ) IN the context, the dismissal of the application is a crying need of the hour. The learned court of the first instance granted maintenance @ Rs. 300/- to the wife and Rs. 200/- for the minor child, totalling to Rs. 500/- per month. ( 7 ) ON revision, learned Sessions Judge modified the order to the extent of Rs. 200/per month for the child reversing the maintenance @300 to the wife of the petitioner revisionist. ( 8 ) THE chief reason which prevailed upon the teamed Sessions Judge to pass an order of verification was that the story of neglect is a myth inasmuch as the indulged in an inexorable attitude to became a partner to the marital life, unless her demand is fulfilled when this revision for reversal of the order. ( 9 ) IN fact, the husband has cultivated recalcitrant attitude of the wife throughout the inception of the marriage which does not afford any right to claim maintenance. According to him, the learned Sessions Judge resorted to a clean jacket formula to negate the claim wife of the for maintenance. ( 10 ) IN a proceeding of this nature, it is the duty of the court to make an assessment of the evidence about the viability of the claim and the circumstances leading to such claim. ( 11 ) THE contention is sought to have been contradicted by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that there is not evidence of neglect. The wife left the premises out her voluntary will, who cannot enforce her right to maintenance. ( 11 ) THE contention is sought to have been contradicted by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that there is not evidence of neglect. The wife left the premises out her voluntary will, who cannot enforce her right to maintenance. although repeated requests had been made by the husband to restore to the marital life. ( 12 ) HAVING given my anxious consideration to the claim of the respective parties and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. I had to make a combing operation to find out from operation of the evidence in order to adjudge the reality of the claim. The petitioner is sough to have made capital to whittle down the claim for the casual evidence of the wife who insisted on separate residence. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, could not be a ground for maintenance as the evidence of neglect did not see the light of day. The husband made an attempt that he is a votary of marital life and his conduct is immune. As claimed, he remitted money order to the wife to bear the expenses of his family for the new born child. But, the evidence knocks out the plea that he ever remitted money by M. O. or otherwise. It is an allegation afloat in the air. This itself goes to suggest that the conduct of the husband is not unblemished. He could not answer the accusation of neglect when levelled against him. There is no scanty material on record that he used to rook after the second child nor did he take steps as father for the welfare of the child and the wife. It is the last nail on the coffin. ( 13 ) BESIDES, why a wife who is a stronger before marriage would live in the house of her parent unless there be compelling circumstances. The conduct and behaviour of the husband after the birth of the second child is a clear answer of neglect which cannot be washed off the mighty submissions of his learned counsel. ( 14 ) IN my view, the conduct of the husband is blameworthy which has not been cured or repaired by any evidence on record. The conduct and behaviour of the husband after the birth of the second child is a clear answer of neglect which cannot be washed off the mighty submissions of his learned counsel. ( 14 ) IN my view, the conduct of the husband is blameworthy which has not been cured or repaired by any evidence on record. On the other hand, he has made an unholy attempt to cover his own fault on the lame plea of his wife, who put up a claim for maintenance. The learned Sessions Judge lost sight of the conduct of the husband and made an undue assumption of facts to reject outright the claim of maintenance of the wife ( 15 ) THE finding of the learned Sessions Judge has made a mess of the whole show, who without making an appraisement of the evidence of the parties, gave a clean chit to the husband which is impermissible. The evidence of neglect and torture has been cultivated by the wife and her witnesses which did not receive any premium from the learned Sessions Judge, was influenced by the barren evidence of the husband about the fake willingness to restore to marital life, which is a contrivance to forestall the claim of maintenance made by the wife. The mere separate residence as asked for by the wife does not constitute any recalcitrant attitude by the wife. If we made a true analysis of her evidence, the same can be interpreted without any least ambiguity that living a separate house with the husband was aimed at and furnished in her evidence is to avoid the bickering,. The marital life would be free from any quarter was the sole reason for the separate residence which has not been appreciated by the learned court below in its proper perspective. ( 16 ) THUS, in all fitness of things and for the flamboyant evidence on record, I cannot agree with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, who rejected the claim of the maintenance of the wife. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge is not based upon sound legal principle and the mis -appraisement of evidence is the result of the catastrophe, which can be repaired by restoring to the order of the court of first instance, in regard to the maintenance awarded by it @ Rs. 300 per month. ( 17 ) THEREFORE. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge is not based upon sound legal principle and the mis -appraisement of evidence is the result of the catastrophe, which can be repaired by restoring to the order of the court of first instance, in regard to the maintenance awarded by it @ Rs. 300 per month. ( 17 ) THEREFORE. 1 cannot but agree with the contention of learned counsel for the wife/opposite party and overrule the contentions of the learned counsel for the husband, revisionist. ( 18 ) MR. Sen to throttle the claim of the husband is sought to have been made a clean sweep from the law laid down by the apex Court in Mannava Satyawati and. Ors. v. Mannaba Malleswra Rao and. Ors (1995)3 SCC 259 where the apex Court held that voluntary abandonment of the marital home by the wife and the children will not forfeit the right of maintenance. The apex Court in the facts and circumstances of the decision under reference laid down the law and their factual exposure of the case does not appear from there. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case. In my view cannot form the decision. The case at hand falls on different premises about which 1 have copiously dealt with them. ( 19 ) IN the result, the revision succeeds and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is varied to the extent that the wife, petitioner, is also entitled to maintenance @ Rs. 300/alongwith the child, who has been made to be entitled to receive Rs. 200/- per month. Revision succeed