JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 10.06.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa, whereby the learned Judge has quashed the maintenance order dated 22.02.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Sikrai, wherein the learned Magistrate had directed the respondent to pay Rs. 1,000/- to petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 500/- to petitioner No.2. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 Smt. Goma @ Gomti, was married to respondent, Chhotey Lal. On 15.06.1996, the Gona ceremony was performed. According to the petitioner No.1, initially she was looked after well by her husband and her in-laws. However, subsequently, they subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. She further claimed that even during her pregnancy, they did not bother to look after her. According to her, on 28.06.2002, she was not only assaulted, but was also deprived of her clothes; she was thrown out of her matrimonial home. Thereafter, she came back to her parental house and a child was born. Since she was unable to look after herself and her child, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In order to prove her case, the petitioner No.1 not only examined herself as a witness, but also examined three witnesses. The respondent, on the other hand, also examined three witnesses including himself. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide order dated 22.02.2003, the learned Magistrate granted the maintenance as aforementioned. Since the respondent was aggrieved by the said order, he filed a revision petition before the learned Judge. Vide order dated 10.06.2003, the learned Judge quashed and set aside the order dated 22.02.2003. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The learned Judge was emphasised three different facts; firstly, according to the petitioner No.1, she was not willing to go with her husband, even if he were to take her lovingly to the matrimonial home. This statement has been given by her in her cross-examination. The learned Judge has misinterpreted this statement to mean that she is not willing to cohabit with her husband without any rhyme or reason. This statement has been given by her in her cross-examination. The learned Judge has misinterpreted this statement to mean that she is not willing to cohabit with her husband without any rhyme or reason. According to the learned counsel, this is misreading of the evidence as in her examination-in-chief she had clearly alleged that while she was staying with her husband and her in-laws, she was not only subjected to physical and mental cruelty, but even an attempt was made on her life. Therefore, since she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, obviously she was not willing to go back with her husband. However, the learned Judge has erred in not appreciating this evidence in proper perspective. 4. Secondly, the learned Judge has noticed the fact that according to the parents of petitioner No.1, they would let their daughter go with the respondent provided he were to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- and were to give a guarantee that he will no longer maltreat their daughter. According to the learned counsel, the learned Judge has taken this statement as an indication that even the parents are not willing to send the daughter without any rhyme or reason, and they are taking a stubborn stand. However, according to the learned counsel once their daughter was subjected to maltreatment, it was, but natural for the parents to insist that money be deposited and a guarantee be given for her safety. 5. Thirdly, the learned Judge has noticed the fact that the learned Magistrate has committed certain procedural lapses. However, for the procedural lapses committed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner No.1 cannot be faulted. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the learned Judge has erred in quashing the order dated 22.02.2003. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Pradeep Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently contended that even before the learned Magistrate as well as before the learned Judge, the respondent had clearly given out that he is willing to take the wife and the child back but it is the wife who is stubbornly refusing to return back, to the matrimonial home. Thus, she is not willing to go back to the matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason. Hence, the element of desertion is writ large. Thus, she is not willing to go back to the matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason. Hence, the element of desertion is writ large. Secondly, from the statements made by the wife that "the respondent is weak and is younger to her", obviously the dispute between the husband and the wife is not so much about cruelty as about physical relationship. Therefore, according to the learned counsel falsity of the story is clear from the fact that vague statements have been made and no concrete dates and details have been given by petitioner No.1 in her testimony with regard to the acts of cruelty. Therefore, according to him, the learned Judge has correctly concluded that the wife was unwilling to go back to her matrimonial home. Hence, he has correctly given the benefit of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C, and has legally quashed the order dated 22.02.2003. In order to buttress the contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Mahendra Kumar v. Shimla 2006(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 854 , Sribataha Barik v. Musamat Padma, AIR 1969 Orissa 112 ( V 56 C40, Ramji Malviya v. Smt. Munni Devi Malviya, AIR 1959 Allahabad 767 (V) 46 C 226 and Deb Narayan Haldar v. Smt. Anushree Haider, 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 265 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 460 (S.C.) : 2003(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 312 ]. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the case law cited at the Bar. 8. It is trite to state that the testimony of the witness has to be read as a whole. A sentence cannot be extracted out of the context to reach a particular conclusion. A bare perusal of the testimony of Smt. Goma (AW1) clearly reveals that she informed the Court that she was married six years prior to the date of deposition. She further told the Court that initially her in-laws and her husband kept her well. However, after some time, they started maltreating her and started asked for money. She further claimed that she was physically assaulted by her husband, by her elder brother-in-law, her father-in-law and by her mother-in-law. She further claimed that they gave milk with some drug and had her father not been informed, she would have died. She further claimed that her father and her uncle came and took her to the doctor at Sikrai. She further claimed that she was physically assaulted by her husband, by her elder brother-in-law, her father-in-law and by her mother-in-law. She further claimed that they gave milk with some drug and had her father not been informed, she would have died. She further claimed that her father and her uncle came and took her to the doctor at Sikrai. She further alleged that she filed a FIR against the husband. She further claimed that he cannot peacefully live with husband. She is residing with her father who is vegetable seller. She further claimed that she is unemployed. Therefore, she needs maintenance amount both for herself and for the child. She further claimed that her husband has five to six bighas of land, but could not tell how much he earns from the land. She further claimed that her husband is a contractor. However, she is not in position to reveal how much he earns. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that the Gona ceremony was performed three years after the marriage. She further claimed that initially she was kept well. Subsequently, she was taken by her uncle and brother. She claimed that her father-in-law came to her parental place to take her. She further claimed that when she went to her matrimonial home, she was administered a drug in a glass of milk. She further claimed that she became unconscious for five days. Her brother-in-law informed her father and upon such information she was taken by her father. In her cross-examination, she also admits that the land belongs to her father-in-law. She further claimed that out of six bighas, about 100 Mun (4000 Kg.) agricultural produce could he produced. She further claimed that her in-laws were working as a contractor, and her husband was working in Delhi. She further claimed that her husband used to tell her that he is labourer and through his labour he is able to seek out a living. But he never used to give her any money. She further claimed that because she is not treated well by the husband and the in-laws, therefore, she does not wish to return back to the matrimonial home. She has also stated that even if she were taken back to her matrimonial place in a amicable manner, even then, she is not willing to go back to the matrimonial home. She further claimed that because she is not treated well by the husband and the in-laws, therefore, she does not wish to return back to the matrimonial home. She has also stated that even if she were taken back to her matrimonial place in a amicable manner, even then, she is not willing to go back to the matrimonial home. She has further stated that although her husband may be younger to her and may be weak, but when he had thrown out of the matrimonial home, he was not weak. 9. A bare perusal of her testimony, as aforementioned, clearly reveals that she has made specific allegations about the cruelty which was meted out to her. She has specially stated that at attempt was made on her life. She became unconscious for few days. A woman who is physically and mentally tortured by the in-laws and by the husband, who have been thrown out of her matrimonial home, cannot be expected to go back to the same house and subject herself to further mental and physical cruelty. A bare perusal of testimonies of Ram Prasad and Rajjo, clearly reveals that they are the parents of petitioner No.1, and they want her safety to be guaranteed. However, the learned Judge had not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. 10. Considering the fact that petitioner No.1 in her examination-in-chief described physical and mental cruelty to which she was subjected to, considering the fact that in her cross-examination, she has clearly stated she was kept unhappily by the in-laws, she is not willing to go to their house. Since petitioner No.1 was subjected to mental and physical cruelty, obviously, she had cogent reasons for not wanting to go back to the matrimonial home. Thus, the learned Judge had erred in concluding that the petitioner No.1 had refused to live with the husband "without rhyme or reason". She had ample reason for doing so. Hence, the learned Judge has erroneously granted the benefit of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. 11. Although respondent has claimed in his testimony that he is willing to keep petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 with him, yet he has not filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Thus, the stand taken by the respondent is merely an eye-wash and is not a bona fide stand. 12. Although respondent has claimed in his testimony that he is willing to keep petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 with him, yet he has not filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Thus, the stand taken by the respondent is merely an eye-wash and is not a bona fide stand. 12. The learned Judge was further influenced by the fact that the learned Magistrate has committed certain procedural irregularities while recording the order- sheets during the trial. However, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for a fault committed by the presiding officer. For, it is not the petitioners who control the recording of the order-sheets. 13. For the reasons stated above, this petition is, hereby, allowed and the order dated 10.06.2003 is, hereby, quashed and set aside and the order dated 22.02.2003, is hereby, confirmed.Petition allowed. *******