P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) OPPOSITE party in Criminal Misc. Case No. 28 of 1993/tr. No. 32/95 has filed this revision challenging the order of maintenance u/s. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short, 'the Code' ). ( 2 ) ON the basis of petition u/s. 125 of the Code filed by the present opposite party claiming for maintenance from the present petitioner on the ground that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner and she was ill-treated and deserted for non-fulfilment of further dowry demand and that petitioner has not only neglected and refused to maintain her but also married for the second time, in the meantime. She has stated that their marriage was solemnised on 4-2-1990 and since 'dasahara' 1990 she has been deserted and neglected. Petitioner without disputing the date of marriage, inter se relationship and the factum of opposite party going to her parents house in 'dasahara' 1990 denied to the allegations of demand of further dowry and ill-treatment and cruelty on that account. He has further taken the stand that due to quarrel with his sister, the opposite party refused to return to his house in spite of attempts made by him both personally and with the help of caste people and 'bhadralogs'. He has further stated that the allegation of second marriage of the petitioner is false. ( 3 ) IN support of their respective cases both the parties adduced oral evidence. Opposite party examined herself as P. W. 1 and did not adduce any further evidence. Petitioner examined four witnesses including himself as O. P. W. 3. ( 4 ) LEARNED J. M. F. C. , Bargarh, on assessment of the evidence in record found the opposite party to have made out a case of ill-treatment, desertion and negligence on the part of the petitioner to maintain the opposite party. Accordingly, in that impugned judgment he passed order directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance @ Rs. 250/- per month from the date of filing of the petition u/s. 125 of the Code i. e. from 31-1-1993. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has proved that there was no demand of dowry from him. He has also proved that there was no ill-treatment or cruelty on any occasion. 250/- per month from the date of filing of the petition u/s. 125 of the Code i. e. from 31-1-1993. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has proved that there was no demand of dowry from him. He has also proved that there was no ill-treatment or cruelty on any occasion. The misunderstanding between the opposite party and his (petitioner's) sister was a triffle quarrel which may be common in every house and that petitioner has not married for second time. He further argued that evidence has been led to prove that petitioner's attempt to bring her back failed due to refusal by the opposite party and that when she has voluntarily deserted him, the petitioner is under no legal obligation to maintain her. He further stated that he is prepared to accept and maintain her if she would come and stay with him. He also argued that learned J. M. F. C. overlooking all the aforesaid aspects unreasonably allowed the prayer for monthly maintenance. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the opposite party argued that in her evidence petitioner has proved the case pleaded by her. Petitioner except adducing evidence in support of the plea of denial has not disproved the allegation of cruelty, desertion and negligence to maintain the opposite party and that learned J. M. F. C. on proper assessment of the evidence recorded the findings and awarded monthly maintenance which this Court as the revisional Court need not disturb in the absence of proof of perverse approach to the evidence and when no illegality in the finding has been definitely pointed out. ( 7 ) IT is the settled position of law that revisional Court is not to reassess the evidence in record unless assessment of evidence by the trial or appellate Court is erroneous or suffers from perversity. Similarly, it is also well settled position of law that in the absence of any glaring circumstance indicating about incorrectness or illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court, a revisional Court should not disturb such factual findings. Keeping in view the said principles, when the record is perused, this Court does not find that learned Magistrate has committed any error or illegality while assessing the evidence and recording the findings in the impugned judgment. Keeping in view the said principles, when the record is perused, this Court does not find that learned Magistrate has committed any error or illegality while assessing the evidence and recording the findings in the impugned judgment. One comment, at best may be made that learned Magistrate did not systematically decided the issues which were considered by him for adjudicating the case. That can neither be regarded as illegal or perverse approach. In the impugned judgment, though unsystematically, but learned Magistrate has discussed and decided all the relevant matters relating to the allegations of ill-treatment, cruelty, demand of dowry and the conduct of both the parties. Accordingly, he has decided the issues in favour of the opposite party relating to dowry demand, ill-treatment, desertion and negligence to maintain the opposite party by the petitioner. ( 8 ) IT is readable from the impugned judgment that learned Magistrate has not recorded any positive finding regarding proof of the allegation of second marriage of the petitioner. In fact, in that respect evidence of the opposite party is not sufficient to prove the allegation of second marriage of the petitioner. Is that sufficient to reject her claim for maintenance? The obvious answer is in the negative. In that connection, it may be noted here that, petitioner has admitted the status of the opposite party as his wife. He has also admitted that after going to her father's house in 'dasahara' 1990 (i. e. about eight months after the marriage) she is staying there all along. Petitioner has not stated that he has provided any maintenance to her during all those years. Petitioner has not produced any convincing evidence that he made any sincere effort to restore the conjugal life. Contention of the petitioner that opposite party refused to join with him because his sister rebuked her (petitioner) by saying 'kala Jivi' sounds highly improbable. In that context, if petitioner's evidence will be assessed then the factum of ill-treatment and cruelty on account of dowry demands appears true and believable. Thus, learned Magistrate assessment of evidence and recording the finding in favour of the petitioner does not appear to be illegal or unreasonable. Taking that view in the matter, this Court refuses to interfere with the impugned judgment. ( 9 ) THE criminal revision is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their respective cost of litigation in this forum. Revision dismissed. .