ORDER 1. Special leave granted. 2. We have heard counsel for the parties. 3. The respondent filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC for herself and for her child. The trial court awarded by way of maintenance Rs 350 per month for the child but refused to grant any maintenance to the respondent on the finding that for no justifiable reason she had separated from the appellant. It has further recorded a finding that the father of the respondent was demanding a sum of Rs 30,000 for sending her to the house of the appellant. 4. A revision was preferred against the order of the trial court by the respondent and the revisional court confirmed the findings of fact recorded by the trial Magistrate and dismissed the revision. Thereafter, as is the practice in some courts, a petition under Section 482 CrPC was filed, which in effect is a second revision, and the same was entertained. By the impugned order dated 22-7-2004 the said application was allowed by the High Court, which awarded maintenance @ Rs 500 per month with effect from 29-7-2000 and @ Rs 1000 per month with effect from 24-9-2001 in favour of the respondent. 5. We have perused the order of the High Court and we also requested counsel appearing for the respondent to show us from the judgment of the High Court any reason recorded by the High Court for setting aside the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. We have found none, and counsel for the respondent has also not been able to find any, nor could he point out any consideration of the evidence in the judgment of the a High Court to satisfy us that after consideration of the material on record the High Court for reasons recorded by it has set aside the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below. The High Court has simply observed that a bare reading of Chapter IX of the Criminal Procedure Code would show that necessary provisions have been made for maintenance of wife, children and parents under the law. The court has only to consider all circumstances on the b basis of evidence brought on record. It further observed that in the present case, the petitioner wife has been able to prove that she has sufficient reasons for her not to live with her husband. The court has only to consider all circumstances on the b basis of evidence brought on record. It further observed that in the present case, the petitioner wife has been able to prove that she has sufficient reasons for her not to live with her husband. The above observations only record a conclusion without any reasoning or consideration of evidence. It was submitted before us by counsel for the respondent that the High Court was exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. Even if it be so, there is nothing in law which empowers the High Court to set aside the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below even without adverting to the evidence or recording reasons. We find the judgment of the High Court to be perverse. 6. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remanded to the High Court to be heard afresh, and in the interest of justice, by a judge other than the one who decided the instant case.