JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for non-petitioner No. 3 and perused the orders passed by the courts below. 2. The facts of the case maybe briefly stated as below : Magna Ram non-petitioner No. 1 is the father of the petitioner Ram Niwas and Anna Ram non-petitioner No. 2 is the brother of the petitioner (Ram Niwas). Magna Ram filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court of learned Civil judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Deedwana, for grant of maintenance allowance to him on the ground that he had no means of subsistence and his son Ram Niwas was financially in, a position to provide him maintenance allowance. Anna Ram is the second son of Magna Ram and he was also impleaded as a party but he did not file any written statement in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Only two witnesses Magna Ram (PW 1) and Narpat Singh (PW 2) were examined in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Ram Niwas (petitioner) and Anna Ram (non-petitioner No. 2) against whom the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. had been filed did not produce any evidence during trial. 3. After considering the statements of Magna Ram (PW 1) and Narpat Singh (PW 2) the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that Magna Ram (non-petitioner No. 1) was 81 years old and that the possession of his property including fields and houses had been taken over by his son Ram Niwas (petitioner) and, therefore, Magna Ram had no means of subsistence. Consequently, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate granted maintenance allowance to Magna Ram at the rate of Rs. 500 /- per month and this maintenance allowance was made payable by Ram Niwas (petitioner). The petitioner (Ram Niwas) preferred a criminal appeal No. 13/93 Ram Niwas v. Magna Ram & Ors. and the same was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur vide order dated 11.12.1993. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal with cost and declined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana and by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur the petitioner has approached this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal with cost and declined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana and by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur the petitioner has approached this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the lower Courts have committed a grave mistake in reading and appreciating the statements of Magna Ram (PW 1) who has admitted in cross-examination that he has 42 bighas of land which he has not given to anyone and that 18 bighas of his land is being cultivated by Ram Niwas since 1989 and Ram Niwas gives to him a share of crop produced from 18 bighas of land and it has also been admitted by Magna Ram in cross-examination that crop worth Rs. 10,000/- per annum is produced in his 42 bighas of land. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge have given importance to the statement made in the examination-in-chief in which Magna Ram (PW 1) had stated that Ram Niwas had taken over the possession of his entire property and turned him out of the house, and that he does not allow him to enter into his property and that he has no means of subsistence. In other words both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the statement made in the examination-in-chief by Magna Ram.(PW 1) is correct and that it hds not been shaken by the answers given in the cross-examination. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the reasons given by the Courts below for placing reliance on the statements made by Magna Ram in examination-in-chief. The certified copies of the statements of Magna Ram (PW 1) and Narpat Singh (PW 2) have been filed by the petitioner and I have perused them. The certified copies of the statements of Magna Ram (PW 1) and Narpat Singh (PW 2) have been filed by the petitioner and I have perused them. The learned counsel for the petitioner wants this Court to draw the inference that the answer given by Magna Ram in his cross-examination that he has 42 bighas of land which he has not given to anyone amounts to admission that his entire land (42 bighas) is in his own possession and that this admission is sufficient to controvert the statements made in the examination-in-chief that his property has been used by Ram Niwas. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statement made in the cross-examination by Magna Ram (PW 1) that Ram Niwas gives him share in the crop produced from 18 bighas of land which is in his possession since 1989 shows that a share in the income from that 18 bighas of land is being regularly paid to Magna Ram and, therefore, his statement that he has no means of subsistence is false. It is also submitted by him that in fact on account of the litigation which resulted in conviction of Magna Ram under section 448 IPC the relations are strained. 7. The statement made by a witness in examination-in-chief must be in conformity with Section 60 of the Evidence Act which provides that it must be based on personal knowledge derived through the sense organs or in case is an opinion the grounds for opinion must be stated. Once a statement is made by a witness in examination-in-chief in conformity with Section 60 of the Evidence Act, the ordinary presumption is that the statement is true unless it can be shown to be suffering from any inherent improbability or is made in such circumstances that a prudent man would consider it unreliable. The object of cross-examination is to test the veracity of the statement of the witness either by shaking his credibility or by impeaching his character or by pointing out that whole or any part of the statement is not in conformity with Section 60 of the Evidence Act and amounts to hear-say evidence which is inadmissible. The object of cross-examination is to test the veracity of the statement of the witness either by shaking his credibility or by impeaching his character or by pointing out that whole or any part of the statement is not in conformity with Section 60 of the Evidence Act and amounts to hear-say evidence which is inadmissible. It is a matter for the cross-examiner to adopt such way to impeach the statement made in the examination in chief, as he may deem fit but it must be kept in view that the ultimate object of the cross-examination is to place sufficient material before the Court conducting inquiry or trial, to form a definite opinion about the correctness of the statement because every finding of a relevant fact is to be given by the Court. Ordinarily where a particular statement made in the examination-in-chief is intended to be challenged as false, it would be proper if the party cross-examining the witness draws the attention of the witness to the particular statement in an appropriate manner and then enables witness to state whether the fact stated in the examination-in-chief is correct or false and to elicit answers which may reveal the truth where the party cross-examining the witness fails to do so, it is the function of the Court to put such questions to the witness as may help the Court in arriving at the correct decision. The power to put question to a party or a witness is available under section 165 of the Evidence Act as well as under section 311 Cr.P.C. Under the later part of Section 311 Cr.P.C. if the Court is of the opinion that for the just decision of the case it is necessary to summon or re-call any witness and examine or re-examine any witness or to direct the production of any object or thing the Court must exercise that power conferred by first part of Section 311 Cr.P.C. In other words, where a case is covered by later part of Section 311 Cr.P.C. the Court not only has the power to put question to a party or a witness it has the duty to do so, so that the finding of relevant fact may be properly given. 8. In the instant case the story set up by Magna Ram in examination-in-chief is that although he is the owner of 42 bighas of. 8. In the instant case the story set up by Magna Ram in examination-in-chief is that although he is the owner of 42 bighas of. land and two residential houses which were constructed by him the entire property had been taken over by Ram Niwas and he was prevented from entering into that property and, therefore, he had no means of subsistence. The cross-examination does not squarely challenges the statements made in the examination-in-chief. Without entering into a detailed discussion, it would be sufficient to point out that it is a case in which the Court should have put question to Magna Ram (PW 1) and Narpat Singh (PW 2) u /s. 165 of the Evidence Act r/w Section 311 Cr.P.C. to find out whether the statement made by Magna Ram in his statement in examination-in-chief is or is not reliable. Unfortunately, both the Courts have failed in performing this duty. 9. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are of beneficial in nature. If a false claim for maintenance is set up and it is allowed, unnecessary burden is likely to be placed on the person against whom the order is passed. On the other hand if a true claim is rejected the person who is in need of maintenance allowance may have to starve and undergo immense hardship. Therefore, in cases of this nature it is necessary for the Court to make every endeavour to ascertain the relevant facts alleged before it. 10. For reasons mentioned above the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur on 11.12.1993 in Criminal Appeal No. 13/93 Ram Niwas v. Magna Ram & Ors. deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside and the appeal is remanded to the learned Additional Sessionsjudge, Nagaur for disposal according to law in view of the observations made in this order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur shall be competent to re-call Magna Ram (PW 1) and Narpat Singh (PW 2) for the purpose of putting such questions to them as may be necessary for correctly deciding the relevant facts alleged by Magna Ram in examination-in-chief. It is further directed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur shall try to dispose of the case within a period of three months. 11. It is further directed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur shall try to dispose of the case within a period of three months. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that non-petitioner No. 1 is an aged man about 83 years 'old and if the maintenance allowance is completely denied to him he may be put to unbearable hardship. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case it is ordered that till the disposal of the appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur the non-petitioner No. 1 Magna Ram shall be entitled to get interim maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month.Revision disposed of. *******