JUDGMENT Mehtab S. Gill, J. - The petitioner Smt. Achla Rani has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 21.10.1989 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, being illegal and without jurisdiction in reversing the order dated 4.5.1988 passed by the trial Magistrate. 2. The petitioner Smt. Achla Rani was married to Ashok Kumar Dhir respondent. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. She was legally wedded wife of Ashok Kumar Dhir. She further alleged that the respondent was a drunkard and his attitude towards her was harsh and insulting. He used to torture her mentally and physically. He used to taunt her that she did not bring sufficient dowry and she was not upto his standard. She alleged that the respondent-husband used to come late in the evening along with his friends and used to order her to look after his friends and make them happy. On her refusal, he used to beat her. In the month of January, 1986, the respondent returned late in the night along with his two friends and he started quarrelling with the petitioner and after giving her beating, poured kerosene oil on her. She was saved by the neighbourers and was admitted to the hospital. It has further been alleged that the respondent is serving in the Railways as a Fireman at Jodhpur and was getting Rs. 2400/- per month whereas she herself has no source of income. 3. The respondent contested the petition. He denied all the charges levelled against him. He further stated that, in fact, the petitioner along with her parents was pressing him to get himself transferred to Punjab and the present petition was filed only to pressurise him. 4. No one has appeared for the petitioner and the respondent in spite of being served. 5. I have perused the record and gone through the findings recorded by Judicial Magistrate I Class, Nawanshar and the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The learned Sessions Judge has erred in saying that apart from the statement of Smt. Achla Rani, there is no other evidence available on record which could support the version in her favour. While going through the record, it is crystal clear that Smt. Achla Rani appeared herself as PW-1 and produced Bhim Sain as PW-2 and Ved Parkash as PW-3. While going through the record, it is crystal clear that Smt. Achla Rani appeared herself as PW-1 and produced Bhim Sain as PW-2 and Ved Parkash as PW-3. 6. The petitioner Smt. Achla Rani while appearing in the witness-box as PW-1 proved the contents of the petition. Her statement was further corroborated by PW-2 Bhim Sain and PW-3 Ved Parkash. After the evidence was closed, the respondent was asked to lead his evidence. He appeared himself as PW-1 and thereafter did not appear in the Court nor his counsel appeared and thus, was proceeded ex parte. 7. From the evidence recorded, it is clear that the petitioner was married with the respondent on 30.4.1984. The marriage was consummated. It has also come in evidence that the income of the respondent was Rs. 2000/- approximately per month. No rebuttal has come forward from the side of the respondent. The learned trial Magistrate is right in concluding that the absence of the respondent during the pendency of the petition proves that he was not interested to maintain her as his wife nor he was interested in taking her. He is further right in concluding that she has no source of income nor can she earn her livelihood and, therefore, granted her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. 8. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. Petitioner-Smt. Achla Rani is granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from the date when she filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Nawanshahr. This Revision is disposed of accordingly. Petition allowed.