P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) IN this application under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') petitioner challenges the order of maintenance granted in favour of the opposite party members by learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda in his order dated 4-8-1997 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 146 of 1994 under Section 125 of the Code. ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, opposite party No. 1 is the wife and opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor daughters of the petitioner being aged about 15 and 11 years respectively. The spouses have also a son aged about 18 years and he stays with the petitioner. About 15 years after the marriage, opposite party No. 1 started living separately since April, 1994 on the grounds of ill-treatment and cruelty by the petitioner, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law (petitioner's sister) for the reason of nonfulfiling the dowry demand of getting a piece of land from her father. She has stated that she was ill-treated and driven out. Petitioner, in his show-cause, has denied to the above allegations and stated that dispute between the spouses arose relating to keeping one Laxmipriya alias Sankha in their house. According to him, said Laxmipriya, a divorcee, came to their house for a period of 15 days to impart stitching training to opposite party No. 1 and successfully influenced opposite party No. 1, as a result of which opposite party No. 1 accepted her as her god daughter. The said Laxmipriya started interfering in their family affairs and started creating misunderstandings. When the petitioner wanted to remove her from their house, opposite party No. 1 resisted tooth and nail and even at the cost of instigating their children to revolt against their father i. e. the petitioner. Ultimately, when that lady being highly intolerable, was driven out, opposite party No. 1 became vindictive and of her own she left the house along with their daughters. Petitioner thus resisted the claim for maintenance on the ground of no desertion or cruelty from his side as well as under Section 125 (4) of the Code. Petitioner also stated in his show-cause that opposite party No. 1 has sufficient means to maintain herself. ( 3 ) BOTH the parties adduced their respective evidence by examining themselves. Petitioner thus resisted the claim for maintenance on the ground of no desertion or cruelty from his side as well as under Section 125 (4) of the Code. Petitioner also stated in his show-cause that opposite party No. 1 has sufficient means to maintain herself. ( 3 ) BOTH the parties adduced their respective evidence by examining themselves. Opposite party No. 2 was also examined as P. W. 2 and petitioner's son was examined as O. P. W. 2. Besides that, one Susanta Kumar Misra was examined as O. P. W. 3. Both the parties relied upon series of documents. ( 4 ) LEARNED Magistrate after taking note of the aforesaid facts and the pleas, formulated the following two issues :" (I) Whether the Op. Party has wilfully neglected and refused to maintain his wife and daughters having sufficient means. (II) Whether the wife and the daughters i. e. petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively are entitled to claim maintenance from the Op. Party and if so, what should be the quantum of maintenance ? Deciding those issues in favour of the opposite party members, learned S. D. J. M. granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/- to each of the opposite party members and expressing therein her inability to grant a better scale of maintenance in view of the statutory limitations. ( 5 ) DURING the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to several passages from the impugned judgment to substantiate his contention that learned S. D. J. M. did not formulate the most material issue u/s. 125 (4), she recorded findings in favour of the opposite party members by applying double standard while appreciating the evidence in record and besides that by importing evidence from outside the record and also basing upon non-existing evidence. Learned counsel for the opposite party members, on the other hand, argued that in a proceeding u/s. 125, the field of enquiry being limited the impugned judgment of the learned S. D. J. M. should not be criticised in the aforesaid manner and that in view of the dismissal of the suit for restitution of conjugal right vide O. S. No. 69/94 of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), plea of desertion by the petitioner has not only been proved, but also the finding of the Civil Court is binding on the criminal Court. Accordingly, he argued not to interfere with the impugned order of maintenance. ( 6 ) AFTER going through the depositions of P. Ws. 1 and 2 besides the verbose finding in the voluminous impugned judgment this Court finds that the criticism levelled against the impugned judgment by the petitioner is not altogether incorrect. Before going to that aspect relating to the petitioner vis-a-vis the opposite party No. 1, correctness of the order relating to the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 i. e. the two minor daughters be dealt with first. ( 7 ) PROVISION in Section 125 (4), of the Code has got no application to the case of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 inasmuch as they are minor daughters and they are to stay with either of the parents. During the course of argument it was fairly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has taken no steps by bringing a legal action for taking the daughters into his custody. He does not dispute the fact that since April, 1994 these two daughters are remaining with opposite party No. 1 and not living with him. He also does not dispute that he was not paying anything regularly for the maintenance of such minor daughters until order for interim maintenance was passed as per the Court's order. All these circumstances coupled with the provision under Section 125 (1) of the Code clearly establish that the monthly maintenance allowed in their favour cannot be said to be illegal or unreasonable. Therefore, that part of the order passed by the learned S. D. J. M. is not disturbed. Petitioner who is not only an educated person but also a man of status must see to it that his daughters are properly fed and nurtured besides proper education is imparted to them. Hence, in that connection if not anything else, at least he should clear up the arrear maintenance dues within a period of two months hence to be deposited in the name of such daughters and to be spent only for the daughters. ( 8 ) COMING to the case of the opposite party No. 1, it appears from the findings recorded by the learned S. D. J. M. that she has utilised her heart instead of head in deciding the dispute, between the spouses. ( 8 ) COMING to the case of the opposite party No. 1, it appears from the findings recorded by the learned S. D. J. M. that she has utilised her heart instead of head in deciding the dispute, between the spouses. It must be remembered that Court is vested with the power under the statute to adjudicate a dispute in accordance with law and at that time the Court is to act according to law, equity and conscience and not according to the sentiment. The criticism of the petitioner that learned S. D. J. M. has adopted double standard in appreciating the evidence adduced from either side is apparent on the face of the manner in which reasonings have been advanced by her in rejecting the evidence of petitioner without due consideration of the plea advanced by him vis-a-vis the documentary evidence adduced. Similarly, she has accepted the evidence of opposite party No. 1 as gospel truth without properly assessing the same. The evidence of O. P. W. No. 2 has been thrown over board simply because he is staying with the petitioner. The same standard was not applied while assessing the evidence of P. W. 2, who is staying with opposite party No. 1. The evidence of petitioner was discarded as improbable when he advanced the plea of Laxmipriya as the villain without assigning any good reason in support of that finding. Similarly, learned S. D. J. M. has considered certain extraneous matter for making a comparison with the evidence in record. He has taken into consideration evidence in the civil proceeding when such depositions were neither exhibited nor confronted to the concerned witnesses at the time of their respective examinations. Equally, learned S. D. J. M. has closed his mind to consider the probability of a case of dowry torture after a successful marital life for over a decade which she found to be very much readable from the correspondence between the parties i. e. the exhibited letters. Apart from that, learned S. D. J. M. has completely lost sight of the provision under Section 125 (4) and in that connection she has neither properly assessed the evidence nor systematically recorded the finding. Though learned counsel for the opposite party stated that the suit for restitution of conjugal right was dismissed on merit, but copy of that judgment has not been filed for perusal of this Court. Though learned counsel for the opposite party stated that the suit for restitution of conjugal right was dismissed on merit, but copy of that judgment has not been filed for perusal of this Court. Be that as it may, it is the settled principle of law that the judgment and findings of a civil Court on the self-same issue is binding on the criminal Court. See (1993) 6 OCR 576, Jasholal Agrawala alias Jain v. Smt. Puspabati Agrawala. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid incorrect approach to the evidence in record, non-recording of specific finding on the question of desertion and partisan approach to the evidence on record, all that makes the impugned judgment vulnerable so far as it relates to opposite party No. 1. Under such circumstances, it is but necessary that the matter should be remitted back to the trial Court for fresh disposal of the case in accordance with law so far as it relates to the claim of maintenance by opposite party No. 1. Learned S. D. J. M. shall bear in mind the provision of law, the pleas advanced by the parties and the necessary points which are required to be decided and thereafter in an unbiased manner she shall assess the evidence and decide the issues fairly and frankly. It is left to the discretion of the learned S. D. J. M. to allow the parties to adduce further evidence, but the case be disposed of within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event parties are allowed to adduce further evidence, any party who shall try to prolong the hearing in the name of producing further evidence such party may be debarred to adduce further evidence after affording a reasonable opportunity. During the pendency of the enquiry and till disposal of the case in that Court, opposite party No. 1 shall continue to receive the interim maintenance of Rs. 300/- in terms of the order of this Court dt. 15-9-1997 in Misc. Case No. 394 of 1997. ( 10 ) IN view of the aforesaid findings while the order of maintenance with respect to opposite party Nos. 300/- in terms of the order of this Court dt. 15-9-1997 in Misc. Case No. 394 of 1997. ( 10 ) IN view of the aforesaid findings while the order of maintenance with respect to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are maintained so far as it relates to opposite party No. 1, the order of monthly maintenance vide the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh disposal according to law and in accordance with the aforesaid directions and observations. Order accordingly. .