P. K. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for respondent No. 1, although the case was taken up in the revised list. ( 2 ) BY the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 21-7-87 whereby the learned Ist Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad rejected the application under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. filed by the petitioners. ( 3 ) AT the out-set it may be noted that though the said order was revisable under Sections 397 and 401, Cr. P. C. yet the learned counsel preferred to file Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. Subsequently by an application dated 23/01/1990 the learned counsel made a prayer for conversion of the Criminal Misc. Application into a writ petition which was allowed by the order dated 8-2-90. Normally when alternate remedy is available by way of appeal or revision, the High Court is slow in interfering in exercise of writ jurisdiction. However, in this case the matter is pending since 1988 and at this stage, giving a direction to the learned counsel to convert the petition into a revision would further cause delay and harassment to the petitioners. Besides this, the Court has permitted the petitioners by an order dated 8-2-90 to convert Criminal Misc. Application into a writ petition. Therefore, the petition is being disposed of as such. ( 4 ) THE judgment and order of the trial Court is challenged mainly on the grounds that there is misreading of facts and evidence adduced by the petitioners and the findings of the trial Court are perverse. ( 5 ) PETITIONER Smt. Ram Kumari had moved an application dated 16-11-85 claiming maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500. 00 to herself and Rs. 300. 00 to her minor daughter on allegations that she is legally wedded wife of the opposite party (the present respondent No. 1) and out of the wedlock daughter Ku. Kusum Devi was born who was aged 8 years at the time of moving of the application. She further alleged that the husband was having illicit relations with other girls and was in the habit of drinking liquor and often used to bring other girls to his house. On objection being raised by the wife she was used to be beated. She further alleged that the husband was having illicit relations with other girls and was in the habit of drinking liquor and often used to bring other girls to his house. On objection being raised by the wife she was used to be beated. She was kept in a separate room of the house and the husband refused to maintain her and her minor daughter. The respondent had also taken away the ornaments and other stridhan of the applicant and he also married with another girl named Smt. Chinta Devi. The applicant has no means of livelihood and the husband had 30-35 bighas of agricultual land, pumpting set etc. and earns about Rs/ 25,000/- per year. ( 6 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 contested the proceedings. He admitted marriage as also birth of a child out of the wedlock but he stated that the wife was living in a separate room. He denied other allegations and stated that the parties are Kurmis by caste and the ladies of Kurmis worked in the fields. His father was alive and pumping set etc. belonged to his father and he himself depends upon his father. It was alleged that the wife was quarrelsome and used to quarrel with other members of the family. ( 7 ) THE petitioner examined herself and two other witnesses and also filed some documents including extract of Kutumb Register Ex. Ka-4 showing that Smt. Chinta Devi was wife of Shiv Bahadur Singh. The respondent examined himself, Shyam Lal and Ram Kumar and filed some documents including Ex. Kha-4 certified copy of extract of Kutumb Register. ( 8 ) THE learned Magistrate on consideration of the evidence gave a finding that the wife failed to establish the marriage of the opposite party with Smt. Chinta Devi and that the wife admitted that she was living in a separate room in the house of her husband and, therefore, her allegations that she was turned out of the house were not correct. The learned Magistrate also held that Smt. Ram Kumari was living with her husband and her husband and father-in-law were maintaining her. Learned counsel vehemently contends that these findings are perverse and against weight of evidence on record. There is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned Magistrate also held that Smt. Ram Kumari was living with her husband and her husband and father-in-law were maintaining her. Learned counsel vehemently contends that these findings are perverse and against weight of evidence on record. There is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. ( 9 ) IN her application as well as in her deposition Smt. Ram Kumari categorically stated that her husband has married with another girl named Smt. Chinta Devi. Annexures 1 and 2 are respectively copies of application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. and statement on oath of Smt. Ram Kumari. During her cross-examination Smt. Ram Kumari has stated that the husband was in the habit of bringing other girls to his house and Chinta Devi was one of them. She has also stated that she was turned out of the house after the husband married with another girl. There is no cross-examination about the second marriage and a simple suggestion has been given that Shiv Bahadur Singh has not done second marriage which suggestion has been denied by the wife. P. W. 2 Harish Chandra Singh has also stated about the remarriage and during cross-examination he has stated that after second marriage the husband turned out to the wife (Smt. Ram Kumari) along with minor daughter. There is no suggestion to this witness challenging his statement with regard to second marriage. In support of her claim for remarriage the wife had filed extract of Kutumb Register, copy of which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition wherein both Ram Kumari and Chinta Devi are shown to be the wives of Shiv Bahadur Singh. The trial Court has rejected certified copy of the extract of Kutumb Register on the ground that the entry was made in the register by an order dated 29-5-87 whereas application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. was moved in 1985 and statement was recorded in 1986. The learned Magistrate took the view that the entry was got made in order to create evidence. This finding is perverse. When there is no cross-examination as to how and in what circumstances the entry was made, merely because the entry was made in view of the order dated 29-5-87 it cannot be held that Chinta Devi was not married to Shiv Bahadur Singh. This finding is perverse. When there is no cross-examination as to how and in what circumstances the entry was made, merely because the entry was made in view of the order dated 29-5-87 it cannot be held that Chinta Devi was not married to Shiv Bahadur Singh. It is only when the fact was brought to the notice of the authorities concerned that a direction could be given for entering the name of Chinta Devi as wife of Shiv Bahadur Singh. From mere fact that entry was made subsequently it cannot be inferred that the entry was got made in order to create evidence unless there was something to show that the entry was forged one. ( 10 ) THE learned Magistrate has also misread the evidence with regard to the fact as to where the wife was living. In para 6 of her application she stated that she was living in a room of the house of the husband and later on she was turned out of the house and thereafter she started living in another house. The learned Magistrate relied upon the first part of the statement contained in para 6 of the applicantion and on the basis of it he observed that the wife admitted that she was living with the husband and was being maintained by him and her father-in-law. There is clear misreading of the evidence and the finding is thus perverse. Smt. Ram Kumari has categorically stated in her deposition that she was turned out of the house and there is absolutely no suggestion to her that she was living with the husband and he was maintaining her. She has denied the suggestion that her father-in-law was maintaining her. On the question of income of the husband also the findings of the learned Magistrate are cursory. In this view of the matter the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has further contended that by order of this Court interim maintenance allowance has been paid to the wife and the minor daughter at the rate of Rs. 200. 00 and Rs. 100. 00 per month respectively. The contention is that this amount was granted by an order dated 1-8-88. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has further contended that by order of this Court interim maintenance allowance has been paid to the wife and the minor daughter at the rate of Rs. 200. 00 and Rs. 100. 00 per month respectively. The contention is that this amount was granted by an order dated 1-8-88. His further contention is that the prices have gone higher and cost of living has increased and the daughter has also grown-up. Therefore, the interim maintenance allowance may be enhanced and the case be sent back with a direction for payment of such interim maintenance allowance till the disposal of the case by the learned Magistrate. It would appear from the record that to some extent the learned counsel himself is responsible for delay in disposal of the case by this Court. As pointed out earlier at the initial stage an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. was moved when the impugned order was clearly revisable. Thereafter the Criminal Misc. Application was converted into a writ petition and thereafter the learned counsel sought several adjournments on one ground or the other. Today also an illness slip was sent. When the Court insisted upon hearing the case and observed that in case counsel does not come the petition may be dismissed, learned counsel appeared within 10 minutes of such observations. There is no evidence at this stage with regard to the enhanced income of the husband. The case is being remanded for decision afresh by the trial Court. Therefore, there is no necessity of enhancing the interim maintenance allowance as awarded by order dated 1-8-88. ( 12 ) THE petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is hereby quashed. The learned Magistrate is directed to redecide the maintenance application in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment within 3 months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed by either party before the learned Magistrate. Till the disposal of the case by the learned Magistrate the petitioners shall be entitled to interim maintenance allowance as directed by this Court vide order dated 1-8-88. ( 13 ) A copy of this order may be made available to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within 3 days from the date of the application for copy. Petition allowed. .