Honble JAIN, J.–This revision petition under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 30.4.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh whereby he set aside the order dated 6.12.1990 passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Begun by which the applicant-petitioner was awarded maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month from the date of the application. (2) The brief facts of the case are that the applicant-petitioner filed an application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. on 30.5. 1983. It may be stated here that the parties were married about 17 years ago. During this period the wife-petitioner went to the husband-non- petitioner several times but she was treated with cruelty and was often beaten by her husband. On account of the above ill- treatment meted out to her by the husband-non-petitioner, the wife-petitioner was compelled to leave her matrimonial house. The wife-petitioner has, therefore, alleged that the husband non- petitioner has failed to discharge his marital obligations and by ill-treating her he made her to leave her matrimonial house. On account of the above neglect and for want of proper means of her livelihood, the petitioner was compelled to file the above application. (3) The husband-non-petitioner contested the above application and controverted all the allegations made by her. He also made wild adulterous allegations against the wife-petitioner that she was having illicit relations with one Kashiram. He even went to the extent of alleging that the wife-petitioner openly protested him that unless the house taken near the house of said Kashiram, she would not live with him. (4) The learned trial court made an enquiry and came to the conclusion that the allegations made by the husband-non- petitioner against the wife-petitioner were void, baseless and malicious. He held that the husband-non-petitioner so conveniently made the above allegations but retracted the same when deposed in the Court. Thus, it is clear that he had the audocity to make these serious and inhuman allegations against the chastity of a lady. He, therefore, found that the wife-petitioner was deserted by her husband. He, therefore, held that the wife-pe- titioner is entitled to claim maintenance @ Rs. 125/- per month from the date of the application. (5) The husband-non-petitioner felt aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate and, therefore, he filed a revision petition before the learned Addl. He, therefore, found that the wife-petitioner was deserted by her husband. He, therefore, held that the wife-pe- titioner is entitled to claim maintenance @ Rs. 125/- per month from the date of the application. (5) The husband-non-petitioner felt aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate and, therefore, he filed a revision petition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh, who by his order dated 30.4.1994 accepted the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate. In doing so, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge embarked upon the re-assessment of the evidence of the parties. After critically examining the evidence of the parties, he came to a different conclusion. He, therefore, reversed the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate. (6) I have heard Mr. N.K. Rastogi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and M/s. B.N. Kalla and K.R. Vyas the learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioner and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. (7) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has very vehemently contended that in the first instance, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge committed a serious error in appreciating the evidence of the parties while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on Pathumma and Anr. vs. Muhammad (1). He further contended that it is proved even from the testimony of the husband-non-petitioner that he first made the allegations of adulterous conduct against the wife-petitioner involving one Kashiram, but when he was examined the Court; he denied the same and stated that the character of the wife-petitioner is good. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce on account of making such wild, baseless and malicious allegations, which unequivocally amount to mental cruelty. Reference in this connection was made to A. vs. B. (2), Smt. Mango vs. Mangtu (3) and N.K. Ghosh vs. Smt. Mita Ghosh (4). (8) The learned counsel also referred to the evidence of the parties and submitted that the learned Magistrate made a correct appraisal of the testimony of the witnesses. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has committed a serious error in re-assessing the evidence on record in his revisional jurisdiction. (9) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the non- petitioner has argued that the learned Addl. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has committed a serious error in re-assessing the evidence on record in his revisional jurisdiction. (9) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the non- petitioner has argued that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was justified in re-appraising the whole evidence on record because according to him the learned Magistrate recor- ded a perverse finding. (10) I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have also perused the evidence on record. (11) I may first refer to the decision in Pathummas case [supra]. That was a case under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate held the applicant not to be married wife but child to be illegitimate child and on those findings, granted maintenance to the child while denying the same to the wife-applicant. The High Court reappreciated the evidence and held that child not to be illegitimate child and denied maintenance to the child also. On those facts, the Honble Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in substituting its own view for that of Magistrate on question of fact. In the instant case also, after going through the evidence on record, I am of opinion that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was not justified in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the learned Magistrate. His conclusion cannot be said to be perverse or not in accordance with law. From the perusal of the evidence of the husband-non- petitioner itself, it is clear that he made wild alle- gations regarding illicit relations with one Kashiram against the petitioner and when he was examined in the court, he denied the same and admitted that the conduct of the wife was good. He even offered to keep the petitioner with himself if she would not insist for keeping relations with said Kashiram. Thus, it is clear that had he suspected any illicit relations with said Kashiram, he would not have invited the wife-petitioner to live with him. These wild allegations made by the husband-non-petitioner amounted to mental cruelty which could even entitle the petitioner to seek a decree of divorce. (12) In this view of the matter, I hold that the impugned order dated 30.4.1994 cannot be sustained and hence, it deserves to be set aside and quashed. These wild allegations made by the husband-non-petitioner amounted to mental cruelty which could even entitle the petitioner to seek a decree of divorce. (12) In this view of the matter, I hold that the impugned order dated 30.4.1994 cannot be sustained and hence, it deserves to be set aside and quashed. (13) For the above reasons, I allow this revision petition and set aside the impugned order dated 30.4.1994 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh and restore the order dated 6.12.1990 passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Begun. (14) Let the record of this case be sent back to the learned trial court forthwith.