JUDGMENT Malay Kumar Basu, J. This is a revisional application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd August, 1996 passed by the learned S. D. J. M., Durgapur in Misc. Case No. 128 of 1995 allowing the application for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code in favour of the petitioner wife (the opposite party in the present revisional application) and directed the opposite party husband (the revisional applicant in this case) to pay maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month with effect from September, 1995 and also the costs of the proceedings to the extent of Rs. 2000/- to the wife. 2. Being aggrieved by that order the husband has preferred this revisional application challenging the same as erroneous, illegal, improper and unsustainable. 3. It is the contention of Mr. Sur, learned advocate for the husband applicant, that the ld. Magistrate has not properly considered the question whether all the relevant ingredients of section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code have been satisfied from the materials on record and has fallen into error by passing the impugned judgment perversely. Thus, according to Mr. Sur, the ld. Magistrate has not tried to ascertain the exact income of the husband and has blindly accepted the case of the wife in that respect, namely, Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is the case of the husband that he is employed and he has no business and the business which has been alleged by the wife, belongs to his father and even after that the learned Magistrate has not considered it necessary to require the petitioner-wife to adduce evidence on that aspect and satisfy the court as to the allegation about the quantum of income of the husband. But I am unable to accept this contention of Mr. Sur. From the evidence it appears that the wife has clearly stated that the opposite party husband runs a business and therefrom he earns a sum ofRs. 10,000/- per month approximately. As against this the opposite party husband has stated that the business is not of him but it belongs to his father and he has no employment whatsoever. Sur. From the evidence it appears that the wife has clearly stated that the opposite party husband runs a business and therefrom he earns a sum ofRs. 10,000/- per month approximately. As against this the opposite party husband has stated that the business is not of him but it belongs to his father and he has no employment whatsoever. It is curious to note that the husband after making such a statement does not make any attempt at producing any scrap of paper to show the correctness of his allegation that the business belongs to his father or is in the name of his father, nor he examines his father in that respect. There cannot be any denying the fact that as soon as the husband has admitted that there is a business, but it is in the name of his father and not in his name, the burden of proof shifts on to his shoulder to show to the satisfaction of the court the correctness of such allegation and also to enable the court to come to a finding as regards the quantum of income which his father earns from that business. The husband's omission or failure to adduce any evidence in this behalf is very significant and from this the ld. Magistrate has justifiably come to the finding that the income of the husband as alleged by the wife should be presumed to be correct and acceptable. 4. The next attack made by Mr. Sur is on the wife's alleged failure to prove that she had been tortured by the husband so much so that she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home. 4. The next attack made by Mr. Sur is on the wife's alleged failure to prove that she had been tortured by the husband so much so that she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home. From the evidence it transpires that the petitioner wife stated on oath that she was assaulted by her husband by means of a Katari on her leg one day and after the passage of three months from the date of her marriage the opposite party husband started to demand dowries from her father and when her father failed to meet such demands, she became subjected to tortures in the above way and thereafter on 2nd July, 1995 she somehow escaped from her husband's house and returned to her father's house and under such compelling circumstances, she has been residing in her father's house and during this period her husband did not take any information about her health and well-being, what to speak of paying her maintenance. But conspicuously enough such a vital statement made in her examination-in-chief has not been challenged, far less shaken in her cross-examination. The only question which has been put to her in this respect in her cross-examination is whether she has stated in her petition for maintenance that she had been assaulted by her husband with a Katari and she escaped from the matrimonial home somehow and his answer is in the affirmative. After this, there is not even a suggestion that she is making such a statement falsely or that such an allegation of assault is not true or anything like that. Thus, the sworn statement of the petitioner-wife herself remaining totally unchallenged in her cross-examination should not doubt be taken as practically admitted and this gives rise to the finding quite justifiably that there was reasonable cause for her leading the company of her husband and from that point of view it cannot be said that the wife-petitioner has failed to prove that she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home being tortured by her husband. Therefore, this ingredient of the provisions of section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code that there was neglect on the part of the husband in the matter of maintaining her is satisfactorily established by the petitioner. Therefore, this ingredient of the provisions of section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code that there was neglect on the part of the husband in the matter of maintaining her is satisfactorily established by the petitioner. Because, it is a settled position of law that if a wife is compelled to leave her matrimonial home being unable to bear the torture perpetrated by her husband and expresses her reluctance to come back there in fear, then that fact will be interpreted as being tantamount to the husband's neglect or refusal in the matter of the wife's maintenance. This conclusion gets strengthened when one combines this evidence with the testimony of the petitioner-wife to the effect that after she started residing in the residence of her father, the husband never enquired of her well-being or never paid any sum towards her maintenance. 5. The last ingredient to be considered for the purpose of determining the question whether the wife is entitled to get maintenance, is whether the wife has any income of her own. This point is disputed by the husband. It is flat statement of the wife petitioner that she has no income of her own nor any means to maintain herself and against this in her cross-examination there is no whisper of challenge. Therefore, this point also has been rightly found by the ld. Court below in favour of the wife petitioner. I do not find any fault with the findings of the ld. Magistrate so far as these four ingredients of section 125, Cr. P. C. are concerned. . 6. Mr. Sur has relied upon certain reported decisions to strengthen his argument. He has first referred to the decision reported in 1990 C. Cr. L. R. Cal 213, wherein it has been held that desertion by the wife of the company of the husband will disentitle the wife from getting any maintenance. It is needless to give any further reasons on this point since I have already showed above that her desertion is not a question of voluntary desertion by the wife of the company of the husband, but, as the evidence has revealed, here the wife was compelled to escape from her matrimonial home due to physical assault and other kinds of tortures having been perpetrated on her. The second ruling referred to Mr. Sur is reported in 2002 Crl. The second ruling referred to Mr. Sur is reported in 2002 Crl. L. J. 1332 (SC), wherein it was held by Their Lordships that the allegations of torture which levelled by the wife against the husband were all general in nature and since the wife did not lodge any F.I.R. with the police or make any complaint before any court of law regarding such alleged tortures, nor there was any evidence worth the name adduced on her behalf to substantiate such allegations of tortures, the same would not be taken as correct and the court below was justified in disbelieving the same and refusing to grant any maintenance in her favour. The facts in the present case are certainly different. It will appear from my above discussion wherein I have shown that the allegations of torture and assault made by the wife against the husband in the instant case have been established from the unchallenged evidence of the petitioner. Another judgment has been cited by Mr. Sur as reported in 1971 C. Cr.L. R. 547, wherein a Single Bench of this court held that it was a settled practice for the High Court not to interfere in the amount of' maintenance unless and until such amount appeared to be grossly inadequate. But in this instant case, I do not find any necessity for considering such observations of His Lordship in this case because of the fact that I am not going to reduce or enhance the amount of maintenance as has been awarded by the learned Magistrate. 7. In view of the above discussed reasons I am of the considered view that the finding of the ld. Magistrate do not appear to be suffering from any fallacy or incorrectness and the awarding of maintenance in favour of the petitioner wife is found to be quite justifiable. 8. Accordingly, the revisional application be dismissed and the impugned order be upheld. 9. If xerox certified copy of this order be applied for, the same be given to the parties on urgent basis. Revisional application dismissed.