Judgment ( 1. ) THE applicant herein is the husband of the respondent. He has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 23-9-2004 passed by VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Criminal Revision No. 77/2004 whereby order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahidpur dated 3-3-2004 passed in Cri. Misc. Case No. 64/2003 has been upset and the applicant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000. 00 per month by way of maintenance to the respondent under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "code" hereafter ). ( 2. ) THE respondent moved for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code alleging that the applicant within no time of her marriage with him sent her back to her parental home as she did not agree to get his demand for more dowry and cash fulfilled by her parents. While he returned her also falsely charged her of complete seclusion with him on nuptial night as she informed of her being already married to another person in GANDHARVA form. She was also wrongly charged of threatening the applicant that in case he tried to touch her she would end her life. ( 3. ) THE applicant denied the charges made against him. He pleaded that due to respondents unusual cruel behaviour he not only had to call her relations and return her but also to report those facts to police to secure him from any untoward incident. He also served her with notice of the above cruelty from her side. ( 4. ) THE learned Magistrate at the completion of inquiry on consideration of evidence produced in the case by the parties, reached conclusion that the respondent was staying away from her husband for her own reasons and the applicant did not willfully neglect her. He, therefore, dismissed the application for maintenance allowance. The respondent went in revision against that order. She found favour with the Revisional Court as seen at the outset, thus this revision. ( 5. ) PERUSAL of the record reveals that the order impugned has been passed without due application of judicial mind since it does not discuss the evidence on record to justify reversal of the finding of fact recorded by the Magistrate. It only makes casual reference to the evidence. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge brims on arbitrariness. ) PERUSAL of the record reveals that the order impugned has been passed without due application of judicial mind since it does not discuss the evidence on record to justify reversal of the finding of fact recorded by the Magistrate. It only makes casual reference to the evidence. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge brims on arbitrariness. Therefore, the Revisional Court was not justified in setting aside the finding of fact recorded by the learned Magistrate on full consideration of evidence of the parties. [see : Deb Narayan Halder v. Anushree Halder ], AIR2003 SC 3174 , 2003 Crilj4470 , JT2003 (7 )SC 379 , 2003 (6 )SCALE742 , (2003 )11 SCC303 ]. ( 6. ) IN the result the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the order passed by the learned Magistrate under reference deserves to be restored. Hence allowing this revision petition I order accordingly. Let the records requisitioned from the Courts below to go back.