JUDGMENT 1. MR. Biplab Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that the petition which has been registered as C.R.R No. 2519 of 2010 is time barred. He has given a break up report prepared by him to show in what manner fifteen days delay has been caused in filing this application. 2. MR. Uday Shankar Chattopadhaya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner is also present in Court. On perusal of the materials placed before me, it appears that there is a delay of fifteen days in filing the revisional application. Since the revisional application has been admitted by this Court and fixed for hearing as 'Contested Application', it can well be presumed that this Court has already condoned the delay. However, the matter is taken up for hearing. The challenge in this revisional application is to the judgment and order dated 26.02.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Jalpaiguri in Misc. Case Mo. 104/08 whereby and whereunder the prayer for maintenance of the present petitioner Soma Sarkar(Bal) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C was refused. 3. THE petitioner Soma Sarkar (Bal) initiated a criminal proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C in the Court of the learned Magistrate, Jalpaiguri praying for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month. It was her case before the Court that after marriage with the opposite party Biswanath Bal on 13.05.2007, she had gone to her matrimonial home and started living there. She was, however, subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband and in-laws though her father fulfilled the monetary demand of her matrimonial house. Besides, physical and mental torture, she was also not provided with proper food. She was pressurized to bring Rs.50,000/- from her paternal house. 4. SHE was mercilessly beaten, as she could not fulfil that demand on 30.04.2008. Her brother came there and rescued her. He took her to her paternal house in order to save her from the hands of the opposite party and his inmates. She lodged one F.I.R against them under Section 498A of I.P.C, which is pending. She had no means of maintaining herself. On the other hand, the opposite party earns Rs. 8000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month from his Gold Smith shop. She lodged one F.I.R against them under Section 498A of I.P.C, which is pending. She had no means of maintaining herself. On the other hand, the opposite party earns Rs. 8000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month from his Gold Smith shop. The prayer of the petitioner was opposed by the opposite party Biswanath Bal wherein he denied all the aspersions and allegations put forth by the petitioner against him. 5. THE specific case made out by the opposite party in the Court of the learned Magistrate is that the petitioner while living with the opposite party subjected him to torture due to his bad financial condition. She failed to adjust with the village life and forced the opposite party to settle in a town leaving his parents in the village. Since the opposite party did not agree to such proposal, the petitioner left his house on her own will and started living in her paternal house at Haldibari and lodged one F.I.R against him and others under Section 498A I.P.C and initiated the criminal proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C in order to create pressure on him. 6. THE learned Magistrate recorded evidence of the parties and upon considering the evidence, he passed an order dated 26.02.2010 rejecting the prayer for maintenance. That order has been impugned by this revisional application on the following grounds :- 1. that the learned Court erred in coming to a conclusion that the petitioner left the opposite party's house at her own sweet will and there was no reason for her to live apart; 2. that the learned Court failed to appreciate that the opposite party made no attempt to bring her back to her matrimonial house and has not instituted any suit for restitution of conjugal right; 3. that the learned Court was oblivious of the object of enactment of the provisions under Section 125, Cr. P. C and failed to appreciate the evidence on its proper perspective. The point to be considered in this revisional application is whether the order impugned is correct, legal and sustainable in Law? 7. ADMITTEDLY, the parties in this petition are married husband and wife. Their marriage took place on 13th May, 2007. There is no dispute as to the fact that the paternal house is situated at Haldibari while the house of the opposite party is in Vill. -Singimari in P. S. Kotwali, Dist - Jalpaiguri. 8. 7. ADMITTEDLY, the parties in this petition are married husband and wife. Their marriage took place on 13th May, 2007. There is no dispute as to the fact that the paternal house is situated at Haldibari while the house of the opposite party is in Vill. -Singimari in P. S. Kotwali, Dist - Jalpaiguri. 8. IT is also admitted position that since 30.04.2008, the petitioner is living in her paternal house at Haldibari and that one F.I.R under Section 498A, I.P.C was lodged by her against her husband (O.P) and other in-laws which is pending. There is also no denial to the fact that the petitioner is unable to maintain herself as she is having no means whatsoever. Mr. Biplab Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the Opposite Party takes me to the order impugned and submits that the learned Court has elaborately discussed the evidence to the effect that there was misunderstanding in her matrimonial life owning to poverty and one day she went back to her father's house. She refused to go back to her husband. The father-in-law and one of their friends came to take her back. The learned trial Court has taken note of the fact also that she has stated in her evidence that she was sent Rs. 500/- by the opposite party which she did not receive because of the manner it was sent. 9. MR. Mitra, learned Advocate for the Opposite Party, also draws my attention to the fact that the opposite party in his cross-examination stated clearly that he is willing to accept his wife and lead a matrimonial life with her. 10. MR. Mitra submits that while the trial Court upon consideration of the evidence on record comes to a finding of facts and where there is no error or perversity in such findings, this revisional Court should not exercise his jurisdiction in order to upset those findings of fact. To draw support of his contention, Mr. Mitra refers to the following decisions :- 1. Kumar Sankar Chakraborty v. Juthika Chakraborty reported in 1996 C. Cr. L. R (Cal) 129. 2. Deb Narayan Haider v. Smt. Anushree Haider reported in J T (2003)7 SC 379. 3. Samita Saha v. Mohan Sana and Anr. reported in (2010)3 Cal HN (Cal) 820. 4. Bheekha Ram v. Goma Devi and Ors. reported in 1999 Cr LJ 1789. 11. MR. L. R (Cal) 129. 2. Deb Narayan Haider v. Smt. Anushree Haider reported in J T (2003)7 SC 379. 3. Samita Saha v. Mohan Sana and Anr. reported in (2010)3 Cal HN (Cal) 820. 4. Bheekha Ram v. Goma Devi and Ors. reported in 1999 Cr LJ 1789. 11. MR. Uday Shankar Chattopadhaya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, on the hand, submits that there cannot be any rule of law that in case wife leaves the house of her husband on her own, she is to be precluded from getting maintenance. In support of his contention, MR. Chattopadhaya reefers to a decision reported in Mannava Satyawati and Ors. v. Mannava Malleswara Rao and Ors. reported in 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Cr) 836. 12. THE provisions of Section 125, Cr.P.C was enacted as a measure of social justice falling within the Constitutional sweep of Articles 15(3) and 39 in order to protect the weaker sections like women and children. It is to secure safeguard irrespective of personal laws of the parties. THE object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to society in respect of his wife and children, parents also so that they are not left ' eggar and destitute on the scrap-heap of society and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy and crime for their subsistence. In the case in hand it was the specific case of the petitioner that she was subjected to cruelty both mental and physical in her matrimonial house. She was not provided with proper meal. On 30.04.2008, she was beaten up mercilessly by her husband and in-laws as she failed to provide them Rs. 50,000/- in order to meet their demand. Her brother appeared there and rescued the petitioner and took her to her paternal house. Since then, she is residing in her parent's house. It is true that Section 125, Cr.P.C requires as a sine qua non for it application, neglect by husband and reason to live apart from the husband's house. THE petitioner herein was examined as P. W. 1 in the trial Court. She has stated categorically that she was humiliated, tortured, mentally as well as physically, and was thrown out of their house. She had to lodge one F.I.R against the husband and in-laws under Section 498A, I.P.C which is pending. THE petitioner herein was examined as P. W. 1 in the trial Court. She has stated categorically that she was humiliated, tortured, mentally as well as physically, and was thrown out of their house. She had to lodge one F.I.R against the husband and in-laws under Section 498A, I.P.C which is pending. In her statement as P. W. 1, it has been made clear that on different occasions, efforts were made to settle the dispute amicably from their side, but the Opposite Party refused to accept her. Ft is true that in her cross-examination she has stated that initially she was in problem in adjusting to village life and there was some misunderstanding due to poverty, but nowhere she has stated that she left her matrimonial house due to the reasons above. The learned trial Court put much stress on these facts leaving the material facts untouched. 13. IT is a basic principle of appreciation of evidence that evidence is to be read as a whole and the Court is not supposed to take up sentences from here and there in order to justify the order it passes. If the evidence of P. W. 1 if read as a whole, it will unequivocally suggest that she was subjected to physical and mental torture in her matrimonial house and that is the ground why she is living apart. 14. THE learned trial Court also put much stress on the fact that the opposite party in his cross-examination has stated that he is willing to accept his wife and is willing to lead a matrimonial life with her. This statement has no impact on the analogy that there is a case under Section 498A, I.P.C pending against him and that there is no initiative from his part also to make that words into truth. In any case, neglects or refuses means neglects or refuses to maintain properly. Paying Rs. 500/- once by Money Order after initiation of the criminal case as well as the criminal proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C, the opposite party cannot be said to have maintained his wife properly and there is, as such, no neglect or refusal on his part to maintain his wife. The factual aspect in 1996 C Cr LR (Cal) 129, referred to by Mr. Mitra, was quite different. The factual aspect in 1996 C Cr LR (Cal) 129, referred to by Mr. Mitra, was quite different. In that case, the husband was posted at Rourkella and the wife refused to go there leaving Calcutta. The fact of the case in hand is quite different. It has not been spelt out within four corners of the deposition of the petitioner (P.W.1) that she refused to go back to her matrimonial house because there is no city life. She took time to adjust herself to village life. Nothing more or less has been uttered by her. There is no scope for the Court also to make out a third case out of the statement made by the petitioner. 15. IN JT (2003)7 SC 379, there was no evidence to show that the husband was cruel to his wife or tortured her. On the contrary, the evidence collected altogether indicated that both of them had been living a normal life for many years after the marriage. The factual aspect of that case and that of this case are quite different. 16. IN 1999 Cr LJ 1789, there was no evidence of ill treatment by the husband. There was also no evidence of neglect by the husband to maintain his wife. The High Court at Rajasthan found it not proper to grant maintenance in such a case to the wife. IN the case in hand, however, there is specific case as well as evidence regarding inflicting torture both mentally and physically upon the wife by the husband. The evidence adduced by the wife also discloses that on 30.04.2008, she was beaten up mercilessly while her brother came there. Here one discrepancy was detected by the Ld. Magistrate. As P. W. 1, she stated that she and her brother were thrown out, while in the petition of complaint she has stated that seeing the condition, her brother took her to her paternal house. This appears to be a trifle discrepancy and is to be ignored. The fact is that the petitioner is a married wife of the opposite party and living apart. The ground of living apart, as it appears, from the evidence on record as well as from the petition of complaint, is inflicting cruelty on her. 17. IT is also admitted position that she has no means to maintain herself. The fact is that the petitioner is a married wife of the opposite party and living apart. The ground of living apart, as it appears, from the evidence on record as well as from the petition of complaint, is inflicting cruelty on her. 17. IT is also admitted position that she has no means to maintain herself. There is a criminal case under Section 498A, I.P.C pending against her husband lodged by her. This being a circumstance, it can well be stated that her matrimonial house is not at all a safe place for her. Be that as it may, I find that the learned Court ought to have read the evidence of the P.W. 1 as a whole and to come to a correct finding as to reason given by her for living apart and the background of the entire episode. 18. THE fact that once the opposite party sent Rs. 500/- and thereafter he said in Court that he is willing to take her back, does not make any sense. It cannot be said that the husband had not been neglecting or refusing to take her wife back. If he had tried to pay something it was a mere pittance, something which is insufficient to maintain herself and inconsistent with her needs and at the same time inconsistent with his income. The husband although stated that he earns only Rs. 1500/- - 1600/- per month, he is supposed to maintain her wife by providing her a square meal and money enough to meet daily expenses including medical expenses and other requirements. 19. TAKING everything into consideration and upon giving due importance on the rival contention of the learned Counsels for the parties. I find that this appears to be a proper case where this Court should exercise its power under revisional jurisdiction, of course by not usurping the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court by probing deep into the fact, but on the facts and circumstances appears on the face of record and the impugned order passed by the learned Court, which, to great extent, is perverse as the evidence on record has not been appreciated in its proper perspective and considered in the backdrop of the entire matters. Accordingly, I allow the revisional application. 20. THE impugned order is set aside. THE revisional application is allowed. Accordingly, I allow the revisional application. 20. THE impugned order is set aside. THE revisional application is allowed. However, the matter is remitted back to the learned trial Court to fix the amount of maintenance to be granted on the basis of evidence so far recorded and further evidence required to be recorded for that purpose by the parties. The learned trial Court should give them opportunity to adduce further evidence only on that point and fix the quantum of maintenance amount within two months hence. 21. CRIMINAL Section is directed to supply urgent photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties with usual undertaking.