Honble GUPTA, J–The revision petition has been directed against the order dt. 1.10.94 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana whereby he fixed maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month in the proceedings u/Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. (2). The admitted facts are that the marriage of the parties took place on 8.12.90 and wife is living separately from December, 1993. (3). Application u/Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the wife alleging that her husband and other family members in the matrimonial home harassed her for bringing less dowry and they even used to beat her. It was stated that about 3 1/2 months before the applications was filed on 13.12.93, she was turned out of the house telling that she would not be kept if she did not bring dowry as per their demand and since then she is living with her parents and her husband was not paying maintenance to her. (4). The husband came out with the reply that his wife was taken by her parents for going on a condolence visit on the death of her grand father (Nana) but thereafter she has not been sent. The reply, in short was that the husband did not neglect his wife but the wife, of her own accord, was not living with him. (5). After recording the evidence and hearing the parties the learned Magistrate held that the husband had neglected his wife and therefore he passed the impugned order. (6). The contention of Mr. Vishnoi is that the learned Magistrate has not properly appreciated the evidence and as the wife is refusing to live with her husband she is not entitled to the maintenance u/sec. 125 Cr.P.C. (7). Mr. Choudhary on the other hand supports the order of the Magistrate. (8). I have carefully gone through the evidence produced in the case. Krishna (wife) entered into the witness box and examined her mother Vijay Laxmi, P.W.2. In rebuttal, Rajendra Kumar (husband) entered into the witness box and examined Ramavtar, N.A.W.1. A reading of the statement of Krishna amply proves that she was subjected to cruelty and was turned out of the house by the husband. The ver- sion that the parents of Krishna had taken her on the death of her grand father, is an after thought. In the reply, the husband had not come out with such a version. (9). The ver- sion that the parents of Krishna had taken her on the death of her grand father, is an after thought. In the reply, the husband had not come out with such a version. (9). The formidable circumstance in favour of Krishna (wife) is that while at matrimonial home her sister Sushila who is married to the real brother of Rajendra Kumar had written letters Ex. 1 and 2 to her parents complaining against the cruelty perpetrated on Krishna by her husband and other family members. In view of the clear evidence on record that the Krishna was subjected to cruelty and harassment in the matrimonial home and was turned out of the matrimonial home, a clear case of neglect by the husband was established. Even if, for arguments sake, it is accepted that Krishna refused to live with Rajendra Kumar, the maintenance can- not be denied to her since it is established on record that she was subjected to cruelty and her not living in the matrimonial home is not without sufficient cause. (10). Mr. Vishnoi has not been able to point out any illegality committed by the learned Magistrate in passing the impugned order. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is perfectly valid. The amount of maintenance awarded cannot be said to be excessive. (11). Consequently, there is no merit in this revision petition which is hereby dismissed with costs Rs. 500/-.