A. L. DAVE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, in this writ petition, is the unfortunate wife of respondent No. 2, who has been neglected by the husband after 22 years of married life on allegation of adultery, accepted by both, the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class as well as by Court of Sessions, in revision. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in a narrow compass, are, undisputedly, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were married about 22 years prior to 1994, according to Muslim rites. Out of the wedlock, the petitioner delivered four children (three of whom must be major by now ). Respondent No. 2 is working with Post and Telegraph Department, at Surendranagar and has been allotted a quarter at Block No. 2. The parties hail from Bihar. One Abid Wahab, who happens to be cousin of both the parties, had come to Surendranagar. He had no other relatives at Surendranagar and he had, initially, stayed with the couple and, thereafter, used to visit this couple often. The human relations, strange as they are, resulted into a suspicion into the mind of respondent No. 2 and he started staying separately abandoning the petitioner and minor children on allegation of illicit relation between the petitioner and Abid Wahab. It is claimed that attempts were made to crease out the disputes with the help of community people, but in vain. Ultimately, the petitioner was required to approach the Magisterial Court with an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Magistrate, awarded maintenance to the children, but not to the petitioner, holding that the petitioner was leading an adulterous life. The learned Magistrate held that, although this aspect is not properly proved, the lady had no reason for not staying with the husband and, therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance and, ultimately, dismissed the application of the petitioner for maintenance. The order was carried in revision before the Court of Sessions, at Surendranagar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, enhanced the maintenance to the children, but dismissed the revision application qua the petitioner. This has given rise to the present petition. ( 3 ) MR. Qureshi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has read the evidence before the Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, enhanced the maintenance to the children, but dismissed the revision application qua the petitioner. This has given rise to the present petition. ( 3 ) MR. Qureshi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has read the evidence before the Court. His bone of contention is that, there is gross misreading of evidence by both the Courts below and the findings of the learned Magistrate, as confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, are perverse, as they do not find support from the evidence. The findings are contrary to the evidence on record and, therefore, this Court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to do substantial justice to the petitioner. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, the petition is vehemently opposed by Mr. Raval, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 2. His first contention is that this petition is not maintainable at all. This is a second revision application preferred by the petitioner changing the nomenclature under the garb of Special Criminal Application, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petition may be christened by any name, but, in fact, this is an attempt to prefer a second revision application, which is not permissible at law. He submitted that, in light of the decisions rendered in the case of Venkatal G. Pittie and Another v. Bright Brother (Private) Limited, 1987 (2) G. L. H. 300 and in the case of Sulochnaben Pranjivan Patel v. Bhailalbhai Shantilal Patel and Another, 1988 (1) G. L. H. 29, the scope for such petitions is very limited and the Court cannot interfere with the findings of the Courts below unless the findings are found to be perverse and ex-facie unreasonable. 4. 1 mr. Raval submitted that both the Courts below have correctly read the evidence. He submitted that in such cases where adultery is alleged, there cannot be direct proof and the standard of proof, in such cases, may not be expected to be as strict and stringent as in other cases. For this purpose, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Pattayee Ammal v. Manickam Gounder and Another, A. I. R. 1967 Madras 257 (head note A ). He submitted that the plight of respondent No. 2 may be visualised thiswise. He is a man working in Government service. He is allotted quarter. He submitted that the plight of respondent No. 2 may be visualised thiswise. He is a man working in Government service. He is allotted quarter. The rent of the quarter is paid by him. The electricity charges, etc. are also borne by him. He is required to stay away from the house in a rented premise because of the behaviour of the petitioner. Despite this, he is ready and willing to keep the petitioner with him, if she is ready to give up the relations with Abid Wahab. She has not shown readiness to stay with respondent No. 2 and, therefore, in view of the fact that scope for this petition is limited and substantial justice is done by the Courts below, this petition may be dismissed. ( 5 ) THIS Court has gone through the evidence threadbare and is at loss to find an iota of even allegation of illicit relation between the petitioner and Abid Wahab, leave apart evidence, as is alleged in the written statement. Mr. Raval also could not point out any such assertion either in the deposition of respondent No. 2 or in the deposition of his witness. All that is alleged is that, once respondent No. 2 noticed the petitioner and Abid Wahab engaged in joking with each other. He, therefore, rebuked them. They begged his pardon and promised that they would not indulge into such joking. Then it is alleged they continued joking with each other. Admittedly, the petitioner and Abid Wahab are maternal cousins, so also respondent No. 2 and Abid Wahab. Abid Wahab had no other relations at Surendranagar and, therefore, he used to go to the house of the couple. Under these circumstances, joking with each other is natural and cannot be termed as illicit or adulterous relations. It is also interesting to note that no suggestion is put to the petitioner during his cross-examination about illicit or adulterous relation with Abid Wahab. All that is put is that visit of Abid to the house of parties was the cause for dispute. Undisputedly, the petitioner and Abid are cousins and other inference as to illicit relation cannot be drawn. Simply because marriages between cousins are perissible in a community, that cannot be inferred good enough for such illicit relationship in absence of evidence as has been tried to be done by Revisional Court below. Undisputedly, the petitioner and Abid are cousins and other inference as to illicit relation cannot be drawn. Simply because marriages between cousins are perissible in a community, that cannot be inferred good enough for such illicit relationship in absence of evidence as has been tried to be done by Revisional Court below. Illicit or adulterous relations are not synonymous to relations of joking with each other, particularly when they are cousins. Both the Courts below have overlooked this aspect and have proceeded on premise that as adulterous life led by the petitioner, as alleged, is proved by respondent No. 2, petitioner is not entitled to maintenance. This Court is, therefore, of the view that findings of both the Courts below are contrary to and without supporting evidence and are, therefore, perverse. This is, therefore, a fit case where this Court must exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. The objection raised by Mr. Raval that petition is not maintainable cannot be sustained. ( 6 ) IN case of Sulochnaben Pranjivan Patel (supra), this Court observed that this Court will not exercise such extraordinary jurisdiction in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution unless any question of jurisdiction is involved or a compelling reason exists. What more can be a compelling reason than such adverse findings of both the Courts below which are not supported by evidence and are contrary to the settled principles, which has resulted in denial of maintenance of a lady besides holding her to be living an adulterous life in absence of evidence. 6. 1 likewise, in the case of Venkatlal G. Pittie (supra), the Apex Court held that unless clearly perverse and patently unreasonable finding of the Trial Court is shown, the High Court should not interfere in exercise of powers under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. As discussed above, a lady in her mid 40s with four children has been denied maintenance on allegation of adultery, which does not find support from any evidence and, therefore, this finding is clearly perverse and patently unreasonable in view of this Court and, therefore, this case seems to be a case where indulgence has to be shown. ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussion regarding the evidence on record, the allegation of adulterous life by the petitioner is found to be falsely levelled against the petitioner and gets no support from evidence. ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussion regarding the evidence on record, the allegation of adulterous life by the petitioner is found to be falsely levelled against the petitioner and gets no support from evidence. There is not an iota of evidence in this regard. Not even assertion on oath by respondent No. 2. The decision as reported in A. I. R. 1967 Madras 254, relied upon by Mr. Raval on question of standard of proof, will not be applicable as, in that case, what is discussed is the standard of proof that is expected for proving adultery. The case before this Court is altogether different. There is not an iota of evidence, not even assertion on oath by respondent No. 2 and, therefore, there is no question of evidence being of a lesser degree and, therefore, that decision cannot help respondent No. 2. ( 8 ) ANOTHER fold of the argument advanced by Mr. Raval was that respondent No. 2 is ready and willing to keep the petitioner provided she is ready to give up her relations with Abid Wahab. It is contended that the wife has shown unwillingness to go and stay with the husband or to give up relations with Abid Wahab. In this regard, it may be noted that the evidence speaks otherwise. If evidence of the petitioner is seen, she has stated that she is ready and willing to snap relations with Abid Wahab, if respondent No. 2 comes and stay with her. All that she has stated is that she does not want to go and stay with respondent No. 2 in the rented premises, as it is respondent No. 2 who has abandoned her. This, in view of this Court, is quite reasonable. Allegation against the character of a lady by itself is cruelty and is a sufficient ground for her to refuse staying in company of the husband. In spite of that, the lady has not denied to stay in company of the husband. All that she has asserted is that she would stay in the quarter allotted to respondent No. 2, which is in her occupation. She has even shown readiness to snap relations with Abid Wahab, her maternal cousin, if the husband is ready to stay in the quarter. All that she has asserted is that she would stay in the quarter allotted to respondent No. 2, which is in her occupation. She has even shown readiness to snap relations with Abid Wahab, her maternal cousin, if the husband is ready to stay in the quarter. In this regard, a decision of this High Court in the case of Khadijabibi v. Husen Yusuf Umar Aliya and Another, 1993 (1) GLR 437 may be profitably employed in service. ( 9 ) EVEN the insistence by respondent No. 2 for not talking or maintaining relation with Abid Wahab, the maternal cousin of the petitioner, can be said to be unreasonable or improper in light of what is observed by this Court in the case of Sarojben v. Thakorbhai Ishwarbhai Patel and Another, 1985 (1) GLR 368 . ( 10 ) THE necessary outcome of the above discussion is that both the Courts below have overlooked these aspects, have drawn conclusion by considering material which is not on record, have grossly erred in reading the evidence, have ignored or misread the evidence and have made observations in their judgments which were unwarranted. The Trial Magistrate has gone to the extent of saying that adulterous life is not properly established and has still denied maintenance. Both the Courts below have overlooked the basic principles of evaluation of evidence. The evidence is to be judged as a whole and periferial circumstances are also to be considered while evaluating evidence. Both the Courts below have overlooked the fact that all children are siding the mother. Eldest sone is lmajor and has been examined as a witness. Out of the three minor children, two are old enough to know the difference between is good and what is bad. And they are siding with the petitioner. The findings, therefore, of both the Courts below qua the petitioner denying maintenance and the observation regarding adulterous life are hereby quashed. ( 11 ) NOW comes the question of quantum of maintenance. As can be seen from the evidence on record, the gross salary of respondent No. 2 was Rs. 2733. 00. The net pay available to respondent No. 2 was Rs. 2163. 00. Thereafter, he has made certain deductions and the take home pay is found to be Rs. 1039. 00. As can be seen from the evidence on record, the gross salary of respondent No. 2 was Rs. 2733. 00. The net pay available to respondent No. 2 was Rs. 2163. 00. Thereafter, he has made certain deductions and the take home pay is found to be Rs. 1039. 00. For computing income in such cases, the deductions made by respondent No. 2 by way of contribution towards benevolent funds, contribution towards G. P. F. , repayment of advance, etc. cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, his gross salary can be taken into consideration as Rs. 2733. 00. It transpires from the pay slip produced on record that he is paying a rent of Rs. 45. 00 per month for the quarter he is occupying. The Sessions Court has ordered payment of Rs. 400. 00 to each of the three minor children, totalling to Rs. 1200. 00. ( 12 ) IT is contended by Mr. Raval that respondent No. 2 has been served with a notice for paying penal rent for the quarters, which would be a liability that respondent No. 2 will have to shoulder. It is is so, the liability has arisen because respondent No. 2 has left the quarter on a false pretext and for that, only he is responsible and he must thank himself for that. ( 13 ) IT is contended by Mr. Qureshi that pays have increased since then. However, the pay slip is of March 1995. The Court does not have any material before it to know the exact salary that respondent No. 2 may be drawing at this stage. However, even if the gross salary that was earned by respondent No. 2 is taken into consideration, deduction of Rs. 1200. 00 rupees from that amount would leave behind an amount of Rs. 1500/available to respondent No. 2. It is stated at the Bar by Mr. Qureshi that respondent No. 2 has made an application in the Court of Judicial Magistrate under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as two of the minor children have now attained majority, which is not controverted by the other side. This would further increase the fund available with respondent No. 2 by Rs. 400. 00 or Rs. 800. 00. In this view of the matter, if an amount of Rs. 500. This would further increase the fund available with respondent No. 2 by Rs. 400. 00 or Rs. 800. 00. In this view of the matter, if an amount of Rs. 500. 00 is awarded to the petitioner, by way of maintenance, the ends of justice would be met. The amount of maintenance shall be paid from the date of application made to the Magistrate, i. e. 21. 07. 1994. The arrears of maintenance will be paid within a period of four months from today. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 2 shall start paying the maintenance, that would accrue hereafter, to the petitioner. ( 14 ) THE petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. .