ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. Rejection of the application preferred under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for grant of maintenance forming the subject matter of Criminal Case No. 71/91 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lakhanadon, is the cause of grievance of the wife-petitioner, the present revisionist. 2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Code pleading, interalia, that her marriage with the non-applicant-husband was solemnized in the year 1988 as per their custom and at the time of the marriage the father of the petitioner had given some cash and certain articles. After marriage the husband demanded Rs. 10,000/-, one Luna and a fan but the demand was not acceded to by the father of the petitioner. This created an acrimonious atmosphere at home and delicate relationship between the two degenerated to a crudely violent one and the non-applicant started assaulting her and, in fact, went to the extent of throwing acid on her for which her clothes were burnt. After this incident the husband, brought her to the house of her father and warned her not to come back to his house without compliance with the demand. Thereafter, with the intervention of the 'punch', assurance was given by the brother of the petitioner that there would be an amiable atmosphere at home and the past incidents would not be repeated. She went to the house of her husband and after staying there for some days she returned to her parental house. 3. It has been alleged in the petition that on 10.05.91 the husband took her to his village Sangi and there she was tortured as there was non-compliance with the demand made by him. She was also assaulted by his mother and brother. She informed the matter to her father and the matter was brought to the notice of the Police authorities at Lakhnadon Police Station. It is also stated that the non-applicant has share in his ancestral properties which extends up to 50 60 acres and he is earning Rs. 3000/- p.m. As the petitioner was unable to sustain herself, she has sought for direction for grant of maintenance Rs. 500/- p.m. 4. It is also stated that the non-applicant has share in his ancestral properties which extends up to 50 60 acres and he is earning Rs. 3000/- p.m. As the petitioner was unable to sustain herself, she has sought for direction for grant of maintenance Rs. 500/- p.m. 4. The said application was resisted by the non-applicant-husband by denying all the allegations of the petitioner and putting forth a positive case that she was a lady of wild temper and she refused to have sexual intercourse with the husband on the pretext that he was not fit for her. It has also been stated that he has been separated from his brothers and mother and, therefore, there is no reason for any kind of cruel treatment by them, and the question of assault was for remote from the truth. He has also indicated in the objection that there is no justifiable reason on the part of the wife to desert him and he was willing to take her back. The wife-petitioner examined four witnesses including herself and the non-applicant examined two witnesses including himself. 5. The learned Magistrate weighing the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the allegation made by the petitioner have no basis and it cannot be said that there was cruel treatment to her or neglect by the husband. He has also recorded a finding that there is nothing in evidence that the wages earned by her by daily labour, is not sufficient to sustain herself. Arriving at these conclusions he rejected the application. 6. Mr. A.S. Usmani, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Magistrate has absolutely erred in his appreciation of the evidence on record and there is apparent perversity in his conclusions. He has urged with vehemence that there is evidence on record that the non-applicants has neglected and refused to maintain the wife. Inspite of valid notice, there has been no appearance on behalf of the non-applicant. 7. To appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully perused the impugned order. The learned counsel has also taken me through the evidence adduced by the parties. I find from the order of the learned Magistrate that he has taken exception to the attitude exhibited by the petitioner to the husband after cruel treatment meted to her. The learned counsel has also taken me through the evidence adduced by the parties. I find from the order of the learned Magistrate that he has taken exception to the attitude exhibited by the petitioner to the husband after cruel treatment meted to her. He has also given immense emphasis on the non-disclosure of the uncalled for behaviour of her husband to her close relations and to the neighbors. This conduct of the petitioner has been regarded as unnatural by the learned Magistrate. I also notice that non-calling for a 'panchayat' of their cast in promptitude, non-lodging of the FIR in regard to demand of dowry with immediacy, non-mentioning of specific nature of assaults on her, and the inclination of the husband to keep her are the certain factors which have weighed with the Court below for non-entertainment of the application. Ordinarily, the revisional Court is not expected to reassess and reappreciate the evidence. But in the instant case, I have been persuaded to examine the evidence as I have noticed that the reasons given by the Court below to disbelieve and discard the testimony of the witnesses including that of the petitioner to establish neglect and refusal on the part of the non-applicant, cannot be have the acceptance in law. The aspects which have been taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate should not have been given emphasis inasmuch as the non-lodging of the FIR immediately after the occurrence cannot be adjudged against her. In a tradition based society like ours, a wife tries her level best to sustain the marriage, to tolerate the behaviour/treatment of the husband and his relations as far as possible. Even while staying away from her husband she keeps her hopes alive for reunion and reacceptance. When the matter comes to such a situation when there is an incurable and unavoidable impasse, then only wife abandons the last rays of hope and frees herself from the confines of the relationship and proceeds to establish her rights in a Court of law. The non-reposition of credence on her testimony on this ground is not acceptable. When the matter comes to such a situation when there is an incurable and unavoidable impasse, then only wife abandons the last rays of hope and frees herself from the confines of the relationship and proceeds to establish her rights in a Court of law. The non-reposition of credence on her testimony on this ground is not acceptable. The comments of the learned Magistrate on the evidence of the petitioner that in all fairness she was expected to empress her agony to her close relations and her neighbours also does not deserve acceptance as a wife does not ordinarily proceed to speak against her husband to the neighbours in an impromptu manner. Non-mentioning of the assault with the burning wood in 'Exhibit D/2', also cannot be a factor to be taken into consideration inasmuch as there has been non-mentioning in the evidence with regard to gravity of the injuries requiring treatment. Incidents are not rare for a woman suffering the brunt of physical injuries in agonized solitude. Reading the entire evidence in proper perspective I am of the considered view that the appreciation by the Court below demonstrates protervity. Discussion with regard to the aspect that the wife-petitioner has not indicated how much she has been earning from her daily labour and whether that is insufficient to sustain her, if indicative of the rationale adopted by the learned Magistrate. While not accepting the reasonings exposited by the learned Magistrate with regard to neglect or refusal by the husband, I conclude and hold that there were justifiable reasons on the part of the wife to leave the house of the husband and stay at her parental house. 8. Now, to the question of quantum. The petitioner had pleaded that the husband has share in his ancestral landed property. Husband, the non-applicant, has admitted that there has been separation between the brothers. It is the legal and moral duty of the husband to maintain the wife. The words 'sufficient menas' do not mean perceptible or definite means. It is the capacity to earn, which is to be considered. A husband has the obligation to pay maintenance to the wife and he cannot be exonerated if he has the physical ability and the mental capacity to earn. Even if there is no tangible property he has to maintain the wife. A neglected wife is not expected to live like a church mouse. A husband has the obligation to pay maintenance to the wife and he cannot be exonerated if he has the physical ability and the mental capacity to earn. Even if there is no tangible property he has to maintain the wife. A neglected wife is not expected to live like a church mouse. Keeping the age of the non-applicant and the parental property in view, I am of the considered opinion a monthly maintenance of Rs. 250/- P.M. would be adequate in the present case. The said amount is made payable from the date of the order passed by the learned Magistrate i.e. 29.04.94. The non-applicant shall deposit arrear amount in six quarterly instalments in the Court below. First quarter shall be computed from 1.07.97. The current maintenance, @ Rs. 250/- p.m., shall be paid on the 10th of each succeeding month which shall commence from the month of May, 1997. 9. The Criminal Revision is allowed to the extent indicated above. Petition allowed