JUDGMENT R. N. BISWAL, J. — In this CRLMC, the petitioner-husband challenges the order dated 6.9.2002 passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Crl. Revision petition No.14 of 2002 confirming the order dated 1.12.2000 passed by the S.D.J.M. Berhampur in Misc. Case No.3 of 1995, awarding maintenance of Rs.500/- per month, in favour of the opp. party-wife payable from the date of application i.e. 22.12.1995. 2. The case of the opp. party-wife as per the petition under Section 125 of C.P.C. before the S.D.J.M., Berhampur is that she married the petitioner husband in accordance with their caste custom in the year 1982. They lived as wife and husband in the matrimonial home in village Hatasasan. But to her great misfortune she found the petitioner-husband an alcoholic and all most every day he used to return home in drunken state and as¬sault the opp. party-wife and as and when he met her father he asked for money on the pretext of starting a business. On two occasions her father paid him Rs.2000/-, but instead of starting any business he spent the money otherwise. Six months after the marriage when father of the opp. party-wife came to know about it, he brought the opp. party wife to his house. Since then the petitioner-husband never visited the parental house of opp. party-wife to see her. The father and uncle of opp. party-wife went to village Hatasasan to settle the matter, but to no avail. The petitioner-husband left his village for G.Udayagiri and has been staying there. It is the further case of the opp. party-wife that her husband filed O.S.No.19 of 1985 in the Court of Sub-Judge (at present Civil Judge, Senior Division), Berhampur for restitution of conjugal rights and managed to obtain an ex parte order. When opp. party-wife came to know about this in the year 1989, she along with her father and uncle went to G.Udayagiri to turn over a new leaf, but her husband threatened her father and uncle to kill, if they did not leave the place immediately. Finding no other way out they returned back. It is further al¬leged that the petitioner-husband married the daughter of one Narasing Das of Kapileswarpur Sasan for the second time, in the year 1984. Finding no other way out they returned back. It is further al¬leged that the petitioner-husband married the daughter of one Narasing Das of Kapileswarpur Sasan for the second time, in the year 1984. The petitioner-husband is a Press Reporter of Oriya daily, “The Samaj” and earns an amount of Rs.3000/- per month as such Reporter, besides having 25 Bharans of landed property, out of which he gets Rs.30,000/- per year. On the other hand the opp. party-wife has no income and has become a burden on her poor parents. Since the petitioner-husband having sufficient means neglected to maintain her, opp. party-wife filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the S.D.J.M., Berhampur claiming a sum of Rs.1000/- per month from him towards maintenance, from the date of filing the said petition. 3. The petitioner-husband in his counter admitted to have married the opp. party-wife in the month of June, 1982, but he denied the allegations of second marriage and assault and torture of any sort on her and also addiction to any kind of liquor. He further denied to have asked for any money to his father-in law to start business. According to him he lived with opp. party as husband and wife for a period of two years. Sometime in the year 1984, her father came to his village and took her with his per¬mission to his house to stay there for some days. When she was not sent back in time, he went to his in-laws’ house to bring her back, but both his father-in-law and brother in-law threatened to kill him, if at all he would come to their house for the second time. Accordingly, he returned back, and after some days sent some Bhadraloks of his village to bring opp. party-wife but her father refused to send her back. Ultimately, he was compelled to file O.S.No.19 of 1985 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Berhampur for restitution of conjugal rights. Opp. party-wife appeared before the said Court and filed written statement, but subsequently remained absent, for which she was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed; still then she did not return to his house. He approached the opp. party-wife personally and also through his kith and kin on several occasions to join him but all ended in fiasco. He specifically denied the allegation that opp. He approached the opp. party-wife personally and also through his kith and kin on several occasions to join him but all ended in fiasco. He specifically denied the allegation that opp. party-wife along with his father and uncle came to his house at G.Udayagiri and that he threatened to kill them. Neither the father of the opp. party-wife nor any Bhadralok, at any point of time went to his house to settle the matter. Even now, he is ready and prepared to take the opp. Party-wife to stay with him. 4. Furthermore, it is the case of the petitioner-husband that the opp. party-wife earns about Rs.2000/- per month by making and selling different kinds of handicrafts. Moreover, her father has deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in her name and given some landed property to her. On the other hand, he is getting monthly service allowance of Rs.225/- only as a Press Reporter of Oriya daily “The Samaj”. He and his two brothers have owned only 11 Bharans of landed property and the income therefrom is not sufficient to maintain themselves and their mother. Under such circumstance, he pressed to reject the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the S.D.J.M., Berhampur. 5. In order to prove her case, besides examining herself as P.W.1, the opp. Party-wife examined her father as P.W.2, whereas the petitioner-husband examined himself alone as O.P.W.No.1. After assessing the evidence on record, trial Court disbelieved the second marriage of petitioner-husband, but held that petitioner-husband having sufficient means tortured the opp. party-wife and refused to maintain her, who was unable to main¬tain herself and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- per month in her favour to be paid by the petitioner husband from the date of application. 6. Being aggrieved with that order, the petitioner-husband filed Criminal Revision Petition No.14 of 2002 before the Ses¬sions Judge, Berhampur which was subsequently transferred to 1st. Addl. Sessions Judge for disposal. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the Revisional Court held that during sub¬sistence of the marriage with the opp. party-wife, the petitioner husband married for the second time and that the opp. party-wife had reasonable excuse to live separately and as such dismissed the Revision, against which the present CRLMC has been filed by the petitioner-husband. 7. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the Revisional Court held that during sub¬sistence of the marriage with the opp. party-wife, the petitioner husband married for the second time and that the opp. party-wife had reasonable excuse to live separately and as such dismissed the Revision, against which the present CRLMC has been filed by the petitioner-husband. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband submitted that there was no reliable evidence that the petitioner-husband married for the second time during subsistence of his first marriage and the trial Court rightly disbelieved it. But the Revisional Court erroneously believed the second marriage. In their examination in chief both P.Ws 1 and 2 deposed that peti¬tioner-husband married the daughter of one Narasingh Das of village Kapileswarpur Sasan, but neither of them could say the name of the so-called second wife and the date of marriage. They admitted to have not seen the marriage. There is nothing in their evidence to show the source from which they could come to know about it. So, the finding of the Revisional Court, that the petitioner-husband married another lady for the second time during the subsistence of his first marriage with the opp. party-wife cannot be accepted. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, next sub¬mitted that there is no evidence, except the evidence of P.W.1 that the petitioner-husband was addicted to liquor and used to assault her for non-fulfilment of his demand of money to start a business. So, both the trial Court as well as the Revisional Court ought not have believed that the petitioner-husband used to assault opp. party wife. Per contra, learned counsel for the opp. party-wife submitted that the quarrel between the husband and wife usually takes place inside the four walls of the house. So, it is not expected that any outsider can witness such quarrel or assault. Only because there was no corroboration to the evidence of P.W 1 with regard to assault on her by petitioner-husband, it cannot be said that she was not being assaulted. 9. P.W.1 has not given any instance of assault or even any date in that respect. So it is not safe to rely upon her uncor¬roborated testimony. Even if it is believed that in fact she was being assaulted, there is no evidence whatsoever to show that she apprehends assault if she would cohabit with her husband. 9. P.W.1 has not given any instance of assault or even any date in that respect. So it is not safe to rely upon her uncor¬roborated testimony. Even if it is believed that in fact she was being assaulted, there is no evidence whatsoever to show that she apprehends assault if she would cohabit with her husband. Admit¬tedly, an ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in favour of the petitioner-husband on 15.12.1988. As found from the record in O.S. No. 19 of 1985 of the Court of Sub-Judge, Berhampur the opp. Party-wife filed written statement, but did not prefer to contest the suit. So it was within her knowledge that a suit for restitution of conjugal rights was filed against her. But as per her evidence in chief she came to know about the ex parte decree three to four years after it was passed, which does not inspire confidence. Again it is found from her evidence that after knowing about the ex parte decree, she went along with her father and maternal uncle to the residential house of her husband at G.Udayagiri, but he did not agree to accept her and threatened her to assault. During cross-examina¬tion P.W.1 stated that she did not know, if petitioner husband got an ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights. She blew hot and cold at the same breath. There is no independent witness to show that in fact opp. party-wife along with her father and uncle had been to the house of her husband at G.Udaya¬giri, with a view to join him, but he refused to accept her. So it does not inspire confidence that in fact P.W.1 had gone to the house of petitioner-husband to renew her marital life. Petition¬er-husband is ready and willing to accept opp party as wife, but she is not willing to live with him. As I have already held there is no evidence indicating that P.W.1 apprehends assault, if at all she would join petitioner-husband. When an ex parte decree of restitution of conjugal right is there in favour of the petition¬er-husband and he is ready and willing to accept the opp. Party as wife, whereas the latter is not willing to join him, and in absence of any evidence that if opp. When an ex parte decree of restitution of conjugal right is there in favour of the petition¬er-husband and he is ready and willing to accept the opp. Party as wife, whereas the latter is not willing to join him, and in absence of any evidence that if opp. party-wife joins him he would assault or torture her, both the Courts below ought not have awarded the maintenance in favour of opp. party-wife. If the orders of the Courts below are allowed to be retained, the same would lead to miscarriage of justice. 10. In the result, the CRLMC is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Crl. Revision petition No. No.14 of 2002 and the S.D.J.M., Berhampur in Misc. Case No.3 of 1995 are hereby set aside. CRLMC allowed.