Judgment : This is a revision directed against the order dated 310. 1986 passed in M.C.No.36 of 1984, on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, dismissing the maintenance application filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner Pichammal married the respondent on 6. 1979. Thereafter, they lived together for nearly 2 1/4 years. The respondent/husband in order to get a job left for Iraq, where he worked as Driver and was getting Rs.4,000 per month as salary. During that period, the petitioner lived with her parents. The respondent/husband was at Iraq for 2 1/2 years. During that period, the husband did not send any money to the wife/petitioner. After return from abroad to his native village, the respondent/husband took the petitioner/wife to his house and both of them lived together only for 15 days. Then the respondent/husband began to demand 25 sovereigns of jewels as sreethana articles, since he was in good status, by getting a job abroad. When the petitioner/wife was not able to comply with the demand made by the respondent, she was scolded, beaten and treated cruelly. Thereafter, she was driven out. On 15. 1984, while the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was subsisting, the respondent/husband married another women by name Lakshmi, as second wife. In these circumstances, the petitioner/wife filed a petition for maintenance, under Sec. 125, Cr.P.C, claiming Rs.400 per month. 3. This petition was contested by the respondent/ husband, by filing a counter, stating that the petitioner/wife was suffering from fits and without intimating about this disease to the respondent, she was given in marriage to him and that thereafter he gave her treatment for the said, disease, but the same did not get cured and that when respondent/husband was abroad, he used to send money to the wife/petitioner and that on his return from abroad, the respondent/ husband took the petitioner/wife to his house and suddenly on 5. 1984, the petitioner/wife, without the knowledge of the respondent, took away a sum of Rs. 1984, the petitioner/wife, without the knowledge of the respondent, took away a sum of Rs. 10,000 kept in his box and went away and that he gave a complaint on the same day before the police and that he also issued a lawyer’s notice to the petitioner to come and join with him and that thereafter he filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights before the civil court and the respondent was willing to take his wife back, and that therefore, the wife/ petitioner is not entitled to maintenance as claimed. 4. On behalf of the petitioner/wife, the petitioner alone was examined as P.W. 1 and no document was marked on her side. On behalf of the respondent/ husband, the respondent was examined as R.W. 1 and one Thangam, Sub Inspector of Police was examined as R.W.2 and Exs.R1 to R6 were marked. 5. On appraisal of the evidence adduced by both the parties, the Court below dismissed the maintenance petition, on the following grounds: .(i) P.W.1, the wife alone speaks about the cruelty suffered by her at the hands of her husband, the respondent, but there is no corroboration. .(ii) P.W.1 deposed that the respondent/husband scolded her in filthy language, but the same has not been mentioned in the petition. (iii) Though P.W. 1 was able to remember the date of marriage, she was not able to say as to the exact dates on which the incident of cruelty took place. .(iv) In the letter Ex.R1, sent by the petitioner/wife to her husband respondent, it is mentioned that which shows that P.W. 1 was suffering from the disease fits, as mentioned in the counter filed by the respondent/husband. .(v) The respondent says in his evidence, that he took his wife to various hospitals for giving treatment for her ailment This was not disproved by the petitioner/wife. (vi) The respondent/husband has filed a suit in civil court for restitution of conjugal rights, which is pending. (vii) P.W. 1 says that she was interrogated by the police, with reference to the complaint given by her husband over the theft of same amount. R.W.2, the Sub-Inspector of Police would also say mat she was interrogated with reference to the above complaint and the same was dropped and the parties were directed to approach the civil court. (viii) The respondent/husband has got other dependents, viz. father, mother, sister-in-law and sister. R.W.2, the Sub-Inspector of Police would also say mat she was interrogated with reference to the above complaint and the same was dropped and the parties were directed to approach the civil court. (viii) The respondent/husband has got other dependents, viz. father, mother, sister-in-law and sister. So, he has to incur expenditure for maintaining them also. These reasonings have been taken into consideration by the lower court, for dismissing the petition for maintenance, Aggrieved the petitioner/wife, filed this revision before this Court. 6. Mr.Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner/ wife contended that the reasons given by the lower Court are so filmsy and not relevant to the issue. He also contended that admittedly, the petitioner is the wife of the respondent that the respondent himself admits in his deposition that he was getting Rs. 1,800 as salary, when he was working as Driver abroad and that he had punja lands measuring about one acre and the petitioner/wife is entitled to maintenance, since she was treated cruelly and driven away by the respondent/husband. .7. Mr.Subramanian, representing Mr.P.Peppin Fernando, learned counsel for the respondent/husband, contended that the verdict given by the lower Court, dismissing the petition for maintenance is quite correct, that the reasonings given by the Court below, for arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner/ wife is not entitled to maintenance could not be said to be improper and that he contended that there is no infirmity in the findings given by the lower Court. .8. I have considered the submissions made by the respective parties and gone through the depositions, Judgment of the lower Court and other records. It is significant to note that even in the petition filed by the petitioner/wife, it is stated as follows: .Of course, this reference made in the petition was simply denied in the counter filed by the respondent/ husband. P.W.1, while deposing before the Court, states as follows: 9. It is relevant to note regarding the aspect of torture out of demand of dowry. P.W. 1 was not cross-examined and even no suggestion was put by the respondent that there is no such a demand of 25 sovereign of gold jewels. Ofcourse, P.W. 1 would say that she was not able to remember the date on which she was beaten and driven out by the respondent. P.W. 1 was not cross-examined and even no suggestion was put by the respondent that there is no such a demand of 25 sovereign of gold jewels. Ofcourse, P.W. 1 would say that she was not able to remember the date on which she was beaten and driven out by the respondent. The failure to state the dates, in may view, would not in any way affect the credibility of P.W. 1. 10. Merely because, the petitioner did not mention in the petition for maintenance about the scolding of the respondent/husband in filthy language, it cannot be contended that there was no cruelty at all. When, P.W. 1 was cross-examined, a question was put with regard to the treatment alleged to have been given to her for fits. But she denied having been given any treatment for her disease. In fact, her specific evidence is that she was not afflicted with any disease. It is quite strange to see that the learned Magistrate has held that the petitioner/wife has failed to disprove her ailment, by examining the doctors referred to by the respondent/husband. This aspect should be proved only by the respondent, because he has come forward with that ground. If actually she was afflicted with some disease, like fits, the respondent the husband would not be prepared to take back and live with her, especially when the respondent gave a complaint of theft against his wife/petition to the police on 5. 1984, long prior to the filing of the petition for maintenance, that she has committed theft of Rs. 10,000. 11. In that situation, I do not find any genuineness in the willingness expressed by the respondent/husband to take the petitioner/wife back. The evidence adduced by P.W. 1, with regard to the cruelty and her inability to maintain herself, inspires confidence in the mind or this Court. As such, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner/wife is entitled to maintenance. .12. Regarding the quantum of maintenance, learned counsel for the respondent/husband submits that the claim for maintenance of Rs.400 per month is too high, especially, when P.W.1 herself admits in her cross-examination that: .So, in the lignt of this evidence and the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent/husband, I feel that awarding of a sum of Rs. 150 per month as maintenance to the petitioner/wife, would meet the ends of Justice. 13. 150 per month as maintenance to the petitioner/wife, would meet the ends of Justice. 13. In view of the above reasonings, the Judgment of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor in M.C.No.36 of 1984, dated 310. 1986 is set aside and the respondent/husband is directed to pay the petitioner/wife a sum of Rs.150 per month as maintenance from the date of order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, i.e. on 310. 1986. The revision is ordered accordingly.