JUDGMENT : C.R. Pal, J. - This revision is directed against the order dated 11.7.1996 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Criminal Proceeding No. 294 of 1992 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125, Cr.P.C. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The petitioner married the opposite party according to Hindu caste and custom on 9.6.1987. At the time of marriage according to the demand of the opposite party. Rs. 7,500/- was paid as dowry. After few months of the marriage the opposite party and his other family members asked the petitioner to bring Rs. 10,000/- as dowry for purchasing a motor cycle. The petitioner expressed her inability to fulfill the demand due to poverty of his father. As their demand was not fulfilled the opposite party and the other members of his family started ill-treating the petitioner in various ways and the opposite party went even to the extent of physically assaulting her. Amidst the ill-treatment she tried to live there for about two years, but when the ill-treatment became unbearable she informed her father, who came to the house of the opposite party and stating about his poverty requested the opposite party and his family members not to ill-treat the petitioner. But the opposite party became furious and asked the father of the petitioner to take her with him or else she should be killed. So the petitioner's father took her to his house. Since then the petitioner who is unable to maintain herself is residing in her parent's house and the opposite party neither ever tried to take her back nor provided any maintenance to her. Finding no other alternative she approached the Court claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from her husband, the opposite party, who works as a Tax Collector under Jagatsinghpur N.A.C. and has means to maintain the petitioner. 3. The opposite party making his appearance before the Family Court filed his written statement admitting the marriage but denying all other allegations. It is the case of the opposite party that from the date of his marriage the petitioner started misbehaving with him and her in-laws and did not show any love or affection to the opposite party and also did not attend to any household work and whenever asked to do any work threatened to commit suicide. It is the case of the opposite party that from the date of his marriage the petitioner started misbehaving with him and her in-laws and did not show any love or affection to the opposite party and also did not attend to any household work and whenever asked to do any work threatened to commit suicide. The opposite party tried to persuade her to mind her behaviour but she did act listen it and also refused to cohabit with the opposite party. The father of the petitioner being informed about the behaviour of the petitioner came and took her with him and since then despite several attempts the petitioner did not come back to the house of the opposite party. According to him, he gets a basic pay of Rs. 625/-. Besides that he has no other income from any source. He has also denied to have any landed property. 4. The petitioner in order to substantiate her case, examined herself as P.W.1 and her father as P.W.2 whereas the opposite party examined himself as O.P.W.1 and his brother as O.P.W.2. The learned Judge after hearing both the sides disbelieved the P.W.I's version about the ill-treatment and on that basis dismissed her petition. The petitioner, therefore, has come up with this revision assailing the said order. 5. When the case was called on for hearing, none appeared for the opposite party. Hence after persuing the impugned judgment, the petition, written statement, the depositions of witnesses, the revision petition and on hearing the learned counsel of the petitioner this order is passed. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the reasons assigned by the learned Judge, Family Court for rejecting the petition are (i) the evidence of P.W.2 the father of the petitioner does not corroborate the petitioner about the assault on the petitioner, (ii) no report was lodged about the incident at the police station and (iii) there is delay in filing the petition. According to the learned counsel the reasons assigned are not based on proper appreciation of evidence and as such the conclusion drawn is illegal. In the above context, it is noticed from the evidence adduced by the father (P.W.2) of the petitioner that he has deposed not to have seen any assault on his daughter, the petitioner. According to the learned counsel the reasons assigned are not based on proper appreciation of evidence and as such the conclusion drawn is illegal. In the above context, it is noticed from the evidence adduced by the father (P.W.2) of the petitioner that he has deposed not to have seen any assault on his daughter, the petitioner. This statement of the father it appears influenced the learned Judge, Family Court for rejecting the evidence of P.W.1 about assault. While rejecting the evidence of P.W.1 the learned Judge, Family Court failed to take into consideration the fact that the assault on the P.W.1 took place in the house of the opposite party and the father of the petitioner came to the house of the opposite party at a later stage. It is not the case of the petitioner that she was also assaulted by the opposite party in presence of her father and other gentleman who came with her father. Therefore, seeking corroboration from the evidence of the father or the gentleman about the alleged assault is improper. In the above context, after going through the evidence of P.W.1 it is also noticed that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence adduced by her. The alleged assault took place inside the house of the opposite party. She has also deposed that other family members of the opposite party were also hostile towards her for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. In such a situation there is also no scope for the petitioner to cite any other witness to corroborate her version. Thus, the approach of the learned Judge in seeking corroboration to the version of P.W.1 appears to be basically wrong. The learned Judge should have accepted the evidence of P.W.1 about the assault even in absence of any corroboration when there is no infirmity in the evidence of P.W.1 to disbelieve her version. Merely because the wife failed to report the police regarding ill-treatment meted out to her by her husband does not make her evidence about the assault on her less credible and unacceptable. The delay in filing the petition for maintenance cannot also be a ground for rejecting the same. Nor it can be said that the delay amounts to waiver of the right of the wife to get maintenance under Section 125, Cr. PC. The delay in filing the petition for maintenance cannot also be a ground for rejecting the same. Nor it can be said that the delay amounts to waiver of the right of the wife to get maintenance under Section 125, Cr. PC. Thus, the reasons assigned by the learned Judge, Family Court for discarding the evidence of P.W.1 does not appear to be based on any sound principle. Hence, the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court becomes vulnerable for interference in revision. 7. In the instant case, marriage is admitted. The petitioner has also adduced evidence to establish that she is unable to maintain herself. Though the opposite party came out with a case that the petitioner earns about Rs. 1,000/- from tailoring, such a plea was not taken in his written statement. There is also no other evidence to corroborate his version. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that she was asked to bring Rs. 10,000/- from her father and when she expressed her inability stating the poor financial condition of her father she was ill-treated by the opposite party and his other family members. She was not given any food at times and was forced to starve and the opposite party also went to the extent of physically assaulting her. On going through her evidence it is noticed that there is no infirmity in it to discard the same. The assault on the petitioner having been established it can very well be held that the petitioner has sufficient cause to refuse to live with the opposite party and as such, she is entitled for maintenance. 8. Now coming to the quantum of maintenance it is seen that the opposite party has deposed that he gets a monthly salary of Rs. 1,128/-. He has also exhibited a salary certificate, Ext.A, granted by the Executive Officer, Jagatsinghpur N.A.C. which shows that his monthly salary is Rs. 1,128/-. Taking into consideration his salary and the present day cost of living it is held that the petitioner is entitled to receive Rs. 300/- per month from the opposite party from the date she filed the petition before the Judge, Family Court. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed. Final Result : Allowed