JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner. 2. It is admitted fact that non-petitioner Smt. Nandni is a legally married wife of the petitioner Bhawani Shanker. Their marriage took place about 18 years ago. It is not disputed that Smt. Nandni is living separately from the petitioner. 3. The non-petitioner No. 2 filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance allowance to her. In her application she has made allegations that she was ill- treated by her husband and had been turned out of the house. These allegations were refuted by the petitioner. Both the parties produced their evidence before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagwara. After considering the evidence of the parties, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the allegations were not duly proved. He, therefore, dismissed the application filed by the non-petitioner under section 125 Cr.P.C. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, the non-petitioner Smt. Nandni filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Doongargarh and the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 22.2.1996 allowed the revision petition, set-aside the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and granted maintenance of allowance of Rs. 500/-per month to the non-petitioner. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhawani Shanker has filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for both the parties and going through the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, it appears that while disposing of the criminal revision petition, the learned Sessions Judge did not pay attention to the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act relating to onus of proof. It is an established law that if a Court commits a mistake in determining the onus of proof (including burden of proof), such a mistake is a mistake of law, as this mistake goes to the root of a matter and injustice is likely to be occasioned by it. If any authority is needed for this proposition, I am respectfully referring to the observations of the Judicial Committee in 1941 P.C. page 99. If any authority is needed for this proposition, I am respectfully referring to the observations of the Judicial Committee in 1941 P.C. page 99. In that case the onus of proof was wrongly placed and their lordships of the Judicial Committee observed that this mistake was sufficient to vitiate the proceedings. 7. Since, the learned Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the provisions relating burden of proof and onus of proof and has proceeded on the assumption that it was the burden of the petitioner to prove, the mistake committed by him is a mistake of law and it vitiates the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order dated 22.2.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Doongargarh deserves to be quashed and set-aside and is hereby quashed and set-aside and the criminal revision petition No. 49/94 is hereby remanded to him with the direction that after hearing both the parties he will dispose of the revision petition in accordance with law.Case remanded. *******