J. C. MISHRA, J. This revision has been filed by Smt. Kanchan Bala challeng ing the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Higher Criminal Court) Dehradun allowing Criminal Revision No. 64 of 1984 filed by her husband Lekh Raj and setting aside the order dated 6-4-84 passed by the Munsif Magistrate-II, Deh radun allowing her application under Sec tion 125 Cr. P. C. and awarding monthly maintenance of Rs. 125/- from the date of the application. 2. The revisionist Smt. Kanchan Bala filed application for maintenance on the ground that she was married 6 years before to opposite party No. 1 and out of their wedlock two children were born, but they expired. Her husband indulged in gam bling and drinking. He treated her with cruelty. He and his father got a sale-deed executed from her mother without her knowledge by practicing fraud. Six months before he beat her and turned her out of the house. The mother of the applicant convened a panchayat to resolve the dis pute but he did not participate. On these allegations she claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. 3. The opposite party Lekh Raj denied the allegations and contended that the revisionist under the pressure of her brother and mother left the house without any reason. His monthly income was Rs. 200/- and, therefore, he was not in a posi tion to pay the maintenance demanded. 4. The parties entered into the wit ness box and produced witnesses to sup port their respective cases. They also filed documents. The learned Magistrate ac cepted the case of the revisionist that the opposite party neglected to maintain her and as she was unable to maintain herself she was entitled to maintenance. He, therefore, allowed the application. Lekh Raj preferred revision, which was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge (Higher Criminal Court) Dehradun, who allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate. 5. Felt aggrieved with the order passed in revision Smt. Kanchan Bala preferred this revision. 6. List was revised. Learned counsel for either party appeared. I have perused the record and gone through the judg ments. 7. It is admitted case of the parties that a sale-deed was executed by the mother of the revisionist in favour of father of the opposite party. 6. List was revised. Learned counsel for either party appeared. I have perused the record and gone through the judg ments. 7. It is admitted case of the parties that a sale-deed was executed by the mother of the revisionist in favour of father of the opposite party. The case of the revisionist is that the said sale-deed was tainted with fraud. The learned Addi tional Sessions Judge considering the aforesaid fact concluded that as the revisionist desired that the said sale-deed to be set aside and the opposite party refused to do so she got annoyed and under the influence of her brother and mother left the house of her own accord. 8. In my opinion, in view of the direct evidence on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed illegality in holding that the revisionist on account of dispute between her mother and her father-in-law severed connection with the husband. It may be mentioned that the learned Magistrate has recorded categori cal finding that the opposite party Lekh Raj was in the habit of enjoying liquor and indulging in gambling. He treated her cruelty. In view of this finding he held that Lekh Raj neglected to maintain his wife. The learned Additional Sessions Judge without reversing the finding drew the in ference that the revisionist started living separately on account of this dispute regarding execution of sale-deed. In my opinion, merely on account of the fact that the sale-deed was executed on 16-2-81 and the application for maintenance was filed on 23rd October, 1982 it could not be inferred that the execution of the sale-deed was the cause for their separate living. It may be mentioned that the find ing recorded by the learned Magistrate regarding cruelty was challenged on the ground that the evidence of the revisionist in this regard was not supported by any medical evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected this plea and held that the finding could not be disturbed on account of absence of the medical report. Thus according to the finding recorded by the Magistrate as well as the fact that this finding was not disturbed by the revisional Court there is no doubt that the revisionist was being treated cruelly. The learned Ad ditional Sessions Judge also refused to disturb the finding that the evidence regarding dowry demand was not substan tiated by specific pleadings. Thus according to the finding recorded by the Magistrate as well as the fact that this finding was not disturbed by the revisional Court there is no doubt that the revisionist was being treated cruelly. The learned Ad ditional Sessions Judge also refused to disturb the finding that the evidence regarding dowry demand was not substan tiated by specific pleadings. He also refused to disturb the finding regarding gambling and drinking on the ground that this plea was not supported by pleadings. He referred to para 3 of the application which contained the allegations regarding drinking and gambling. 9. The scope of revision is very limited. The revisional Court cannot dis turb the finding recorded by the trial Court unless it is perverse or is based on misread ing of the evidence or is not based on material on record. The learned Addition al Sessions judge committed illegality in drawing the conclusion on the basis of the execution of the sale-deed alone that it was cause for separate living between husband and wife. In view of the positive evidence that the husband treated his wife with cruelty no such conclusion could be drawn. This inference is perverse. On such as sumption the finding recorded by the Magistrate which was fully supported by evidence on record could not be disturbed and neither it has been disturbed. I find that the Magistrate had rightly held that Lekh Raj neglected to maintain his wife. He, therefore, committed material il legality in reversing the order. 10. The revision is allowed. The im pugned order dated 15-6-84 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Dehradun in Criminal Revision No. 64 of 1984 Lekh Raj v. Smt Kanchan Bala, is set aside. The order passed by the Munsif Magistrate-II, Dehradun is restored. Revision allowed. .