ORDER 1. This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred with a prayer to quash the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonkutch in Cr.R. No. 38/04 confirming the order passed by JMFC, Sonkutch in Cr.C. No. 17/02 on 13.2.2004 whereby application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code moved by the applicant was dismissed. Admittedly, marriage of applicant and non-applicant was solemnized on 15.5.1997 according to Hindu rituals and applicant started living with non-applicant in her matrimonial house. It is also not in dispute that at present applicant is residing with her father. 2. The case of the applicant before learned JMFC was this that after some time from her marriage with the non-applicant, non-applicant and his family members started torturing her for demand of dowry. Parents of the applicant gave Rs. 5.000/- on two occasions to non-applicant but even then demand of dowry continued. Non-applicant started harassment and treated applicant with cruelty and then sent her to her parental house to bring some more money. Untimely non-applicant told applicant that she can only live in her matrimonial house if some more money by way of dowry is brought by her. She was given threat of causing her death by pouring kerosene and thereafter ablazing her. In such circumstances she went to her parental house. It was also stated in the application that the applicant is unable to maintain herself whereas non-applicant has got sufficient means of income to pay maintenance to the applicant. 3. Non-applicant in his reply contended that applicant left matrimonial house on her own without informing anyone a report of missing person was lodged by non-applicant. He has also said that applicant also instituted a false case under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code against him and his family members by lodging a false report. After trial non-applicant and his family members were acquitted. It has also been averred that applicant is well educated, she runs a coaching class and is earning Rs. 3,000/- to 4.000/- per month by this business of coaching class. She is living in her parental house without any reasonable and proper cause so she is not entitled for maintenances living separately. 4. It has also been averred that applicant is well educated, she runs a coaching class and is earning Rs. 3,000/- to 4.000/- per month by this business of coaching class. She is living in her parental house without any reasonable and proper cause so she is not entitled for maintenances living separately. 4. Learned Magistrate after recording evidence of both the parties came to the conclusion that applicant is living separately from her husband non-applicant without any reasonable and proper cause and, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Applicant preferred revision against this order which fails and learned Additional Sessions Judge also observed that applicant is living separately without any reasonable and proper cause. Applicant came before this Court for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and prayed for setting aside the impugned orders passed by learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge and to allow her application filed under section 125. Criminal Procedure Code. 5. Learned counsel Shri Sunil Jain appeared for the applicant submitted that two Courts below have erroneously came to the conclusion that applicant is living separately without any sufficient and proper cause. He submitted that statement given by applicant herself before learned Judicial Magistrate fully corroborated by witnesses Narayansingh (PW 2), Mahendra Singh (PW 3), Gopal Singh (PW 4), Sodan Singh (PW 5). All these witnesses deposed that applicant was being harassed by her husband non-applicant on demand of dowry. She was also beaten many times by non-applicant and sustained injuries, so there was reasonable and sufficient cause available to applicant for living separately from her husband. He has drawn attention of this Court towards the statements given by these witnesses before learned Magistrate and submitted that the evidence adduced by the applicant was sufficient to hold that applicant is entitled to claim maintenance by living separately. 6. Learned counsel for the non-applicant per contra, submitted that the two Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that applicant is living separately without any reasonable and sufficient cause. 6. Learned counsel for the non-applicant per contra, submitted that the two Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that applicant is living separately without any reasonable and sufficient cause. He has drawn attention of this Court towards the statement given by Rajendra Singh himself (DW 1) who told before the Court that two years back all of a sudden applicant left his house, he searched applicant in the residence of his brother and father, but no clue was given by those persons, ultimately he lodged a complaint that applicant is missing. Learned counsel further submitted that a false case of dowry demand was instituted by the applicant against non-applicant in which non-applicant was acquitted. Considering all these evidence if the trial Court and Revisional Court refused to grant maintenance to the applicant then it cannot be said that they have committed any illegality and irregularity. He further submitted that the order passed by two Courts below are perfectly justified and no interference is called for in this petition. 7. Applicant Dalibai deposed before the Magistrate that for first 1 1/2 year she was kept well in her matrimonial house, but thereafter her husband started demanding money by way of dowry. She has further stated that Rs. 5.000/- were given by her father to non-applicant on two occasion but even then non-applicant was demanding Rs. 50,000/- and for this demand he was harassing her and even causing injuries to her by assault She has further deposed that when she was pregnant even at that time she was assaulted by her husband on stomach which resulted in miscarriage Non-applicant also cut her hair and broken bangles and the Mangalsootra and ultimately ousted her from her matrimonial house, then she came t the resident of her father and lodged a report against npn-applicant. Other witnesses examined by the applicant have also supported the statement given by her, those witnesses are her brother and relatives. 8. It is true that non-applicant and his family members were acquitted by a criminal Court but it has been mentioned by learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order in paragraph 12 that criminal Court acquitted non-applicant and others as it was not found proved that they treated applicant with cruelty for demand of dowry. Copy of the judgment Ex. 8. It is true that non-applicant and his family members were acquitted by a criminal Court but it has been mentioned by learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order in paragraph 12 that criminal Court acquitted non-applicant and others as it was not found proved that they treated applicant with cruelty for demand of dowry. Copy of the judgment Ex. D2 shows that learned JMFC, Sonkutch in paragraph 13 of that judgment held that the offence punishable under sections 323,498 (A) and 506 (b) of Indian Penal Code were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, non-applicant and his family members were acquitted giving them benefit of doubt. If non-applicant and his family- members were acquitted by criminal Court, giving them benefit of doubt, then only on this basis this cannot be held that applicant does not have any sufficient cause for living separately. In the proceeding under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code applicant has given statement on oath and stated that she was treated with cruelty at her matrimonial house. There may be some exaggerations in this statement but it provides reasonable cause to the applicant to live separately. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mannava Satyawati and others v. Mannava Malleswara Rao and others, [1995 Supp (3) SCC 259], observed that: The High Court fell into patent error in reaching the finding that since the wife and the children left the house on their own they were not entitled to the maintenance. In the facts and circumstances of this case the respondent was bound to maintain his wife and children. With these observations the judgment of the High Court and District Judge was set aside and order passed by Magistrate awarding maintenance was restored. 10. In the present case also it appears that applicant left the house of non-applicant under compulsion when harassment became intolerable. Merely because in criminal case it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that non-applicant and his family members committed offence punishable under sections 323, 498 (a) and 506 (b) of Indian Penal Code, this inference cannot be drawn that applicant was not having sufficient or reasonable cause to live separately. Statement given by the applicant is sufficient to hold that such reasonable and sufficient cause available to her to live separately and, therefore, she is entitled for maintenance. 11. In result of above discussion the petition succeeds and is allowed. Statement given by the applicant is sufficient to hold that such reasonable and sufficient cause available to her to live separately and, therefore, she is entitled for maintenance. 11. In result of above discussion the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and that of learned Magistrate Sonkutch are set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Magistrate First Class, Sonkutch to decide the matter afresh as per provisions of law, keeping in mind the observations made in this order.