JUDGMENT:- Revision applicant is wife e of the respondent Kalidas. Her application for grant of maintenance under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code bearing Misc. Criminal Application No. 100/1999 was granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Warora by his order dated 25.2.2000. Respondent preferred revision application to against that judgment and order vide Criminal Revision No. 69/2000 before the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. He allowed the said revision by his order dated 3.5.2006 whereby the application of the revision applicant under section 125 of Code Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance was dismissed. Revision applicant seeks to challenge that order. 2. It may be stated that revision applicant had preferred the aforesaid Misc. Criminal Application No. 100/1999 in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Warora. According to her she is wife of respondent and they were blessed with one son and the daughter born out of this wedlock. After marriage revision applicant started residing with the respondent at village Chargaon (Dharan), Tahsil Warora. It is alleged that few days thereafter, respondent started beating the petitioner. He was also asking her to bring the money from her father and suspecting her chastity. It is alleged that respondent had kept son and daughter with his mother at Warora and he was not allowing her to see them. He also used to reside with his mother leaving revision applicant alone in the village. It is alleged that the respondent had levelled false charge against revision applicant saying that she had mixed poison in chapaties which were to be served to him. She was also confined in the house. It is alleged that the respondent then called the father of revision applicant and drove her out of the house. Since then revision applicant is living in her parents home. Attempt of the applicant to join matrimonial company of the respondent failed. Respondent sent a notice to her calling a meeting of four respectable persons in the house of one Gajanan Lode at Warora. On failure to attend the said meeting according to him, the said notice should have been treated as divorce. It is alleged that similar notice was published in daily ‘Lokmat’ on 17.6.1999. Father of the revision applicant attended the meeting to request the respondent to postpone the same. On failure to attend the said meeting according to him, the said notice should have been treated as divorce. It is alleged that similar notice was published in daily ‘Lokmat’ on 17.6.1999. Father of the revision applicant attended the meeting to request the respondent to postpone the same. It is alleged that after waiting for some time for the respondent father of the revision applicant had to leave the house of the said Gajanan Lode. Thereafter, she sent reply to the notice of the respondent. Respondent by sending notice intimated that divorce between both of them had taken place after publishing public notice in the newspaper. She is contending that she is unable to maintain herself and the respondent has sufficient means to pay the maintenance, with such case she claimed Rs. l,500/- per month towards maintenance. 3. Respondent by filing say opposed the application. He admitted that she is his legally wedded wife. However, according to him, she was insisting to come to reside at village Nagari where her father resides, respondent refused to do the same. It is alleged that the respondent had become mentally ill and from 1985 to 1994, respondent was suffering. It is alleged that in 1994 revision applicant gave ‘Angara’ [Sacred sandal stick ash] to him saying that it was being given to him for the purpose of improvement in his health however respondent did not get any relief. It is alleged that sometime in the month of December 1996, revision applicant had served chapaties to him in his food, which contained poison then he had called police patil of the village by name Ghularam Dolas who had seen those chapaties. It is alleged that revision applicant had admitted the incident and prayed for excuse. Thereafter, father of the revision applicant was called and he was told about the incident and some other persons were also called. Thereafter, she was taken to her maternal home. Exchange of notices has been admitted so also publication of the notice. It is claimed that the revision applicant is able to maintain herself whereas respondent is unable to pay any separate maintenance to her. 4. Revision applicant led her evidence. Respondent also led his evidence. Thereafter, she was taken to her maternal home. Exchange of notices has been admitted so also publication of the notice. It is claimed that the revision applicant is able to maintain herself whereas respondent is unable to pay any separate maintenance to her. 4. Revision applicant led her evidence. Respondent also led his evidence. They have examined some witnesses, After considering the evidence on record and hearing the parties, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Warora vide his order dated 25.5.2000 allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs. l,000/- per month to the revision applicant besides cost of Rs. 500/- 5. This order was challenged by the respondent before the Sessions Judge Chandrapur and in turn 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur allowed his Criminal Revision Application No. 69/2000 holding that, the revision applicant had no just ground to refuse to live with the respondent. This order dated 3.5.2005 is challenged in this revision application. 6. Learned counsel for the revision applicant Shri. Bhuibhar has contended that the trial court had appreciated the evidence led by the parties correctly and on the basis of the material available on record and considering the submissions of the parties, the learned trial Judge had rightly allowed the application of the revision applicant and although there was no perversity in the order, nor the findings therein, in favour of the applicant• were illegal and improper, still the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge re-appreciated the evidence and held the revision applicant not entitled for maintenance. According to him, there are unwarranted observations in the impugned judgment that, though revision applicant resided together for about 8 years and she was being ill-treated; she did not raise any hue or cry and did not lodge any report to the police station, nor any complaint was made to the panchayat. He also held that income of the respondent was alleged to be Rs. 5,00,000/- and as such there cannot be any demand of money by the side of respondent. According to him, observations of the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge 'disentitling the revision applicant from maintenance, are not correct and proper and sustainable at law. 7. None appeared for the respondent. 8. 5,00,000/- and as such there cannot be any demand of money by the side of respondent. According to him, observations of the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge 'disentitling the revision applicant from maintenance, are not correct and proper and sustainable at law. 7. None appeared for the respondent. 8. On perusal of the order of the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, it seems that he has re-appreciated whole of the evidence led by the parties on which the learned Magistrate had granted the maintenance to the revision applicant. It does appear that the evidence of the applicant and her father, was not relied upon by him it is necessary to bear in mind that the revision applicant is presently living with her parents She was asked to be taken away by the respondent. No Hindu Woman would create a situation by which she would be forced to leave matrimonial home. It can be only for compelling reasons or something, which might attract her to her parents home. On perusal of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it appears that he has held that because there were no complaints made by the revision applicant, she was not being ill-treated It is always possible that, to avoid disruption of the matrimonial home she might have not raised such complaints, particularly when she was blessed with children. It is the case raised by the respondent that the revision applicant had tried to administer poison to him. However, though the police patil had supported such version, it can be said to be sufficient to reject her claim of maintenance. There should have been more evidence about this on record, which could have been available. Merely because respondent is in sound financial position, it is not sufficient to hold that he would not make any demand. All that depends is on the evidence led by the parties. Inferences and findings need to be based on the evidence on record. It is true that the letters Exs.45 and 46, which are produced on record and written by the revision applicant to her parents, did not disclose any single word about the physical and mental ill-treatment or demand of money or anything else, that fact by itself will not disentitle the revision applicant from claiming maintenance. 9. It is true that the letters Exs.45 and 46, which are produced on record and written by the revision applicant to her parents, did not disclose any single word about the physical and mental ill-treatment or demand of money or anything else, that fact by itself will not disentitle the revision applicant from claiming maintenance. 9. Here is a case where learned Magistrate after considering evidence on record, and having found that the exchange of notices particularly notice published in the daily newspaper Lokmat, has held the applicant entitled for maintenance, The very fact of publishing of that notice in the newspaper, will show that the respondent was not willing to maintain her. In such circumstances, it would not be proper to leave the revision applicant without any support for her maintenance and therefore, when there is obvious refusal on the part of the respondent to maintain her; the revision applicant would be entitled for maintenance. The view taken by the learned Magistrate can not be said to be perverse to the record or illegal and therefore, it was not be liable to be interfered with, in the revision application as done by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge. 10. As already pointed out above, the respondent has failed to make any submissions in this revision application. As such, this revision application will have to be allowed. 11. In this behalf, observations of this court in 1984 Mh.L.J. 765 [Kalpana Ashok Takle Vs. Ashok @ Adinath Sonaji Takale & another] which are to the effect: “When a finding of the Judicial Magistrate is based on evidence and it is also in favour of the weaker sections of the society and also advances the intent of the legislation, it is no longer open for the Revisional Court to set aside, that finding by re-appreciating the evidence unless the finding is manifestly perverse. are also attracted, which support the contention of revision applicant. 12. Thus the order of the revisional court is incorrect, improper and unjust, as such revision application is allowed. Impugned order of the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 69/2000 dated 3.5.2005 is hereby quashed and set aside and instead that of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Warora, in Misc. Criminal Application No. 100/1990 dated 25.5.2000 is hereby restored. Application allowed.