Judgment By the present Criminal Revision Application, the Applicants are challenging the Judgment and Order dated 30th September, 2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Cri.Revn.Appln.No.31 Of 2000, by which the learned Revisional Court was pleased to partly allowed the Cri.Revision filed on behalf of the present respondent/husband and denied the maintenance to present Applicant No.1 – Dwarkabai/wife. [2] Applicant No.1 - Dwarkabai and Respondent – Sambhaji are the wife and husband. Applicant Nos. 2 & 3 are their children. In the year 1998, the present Applicants were required to approach in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, [F.C.], Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar U/Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of monthly maintenance allowance; since the Respondent refused and neglected to maintain them. They claimed maintenance allowance @ Rs.500/- per month for Applicant No.1 – Dwarkabai and @ Rs.200/- per month for Applicant Nos. 2 & 3. Said Application was registered as Cri.M.A.No.59 Of 1992. Said Criminal Application was opposed by the respondent. Parties adduced their respective evidence. [3] Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate, [F.C.], Shevgaon found that the Applicants succeeded to establish that the respondent refused and neglected to maintain them. The learned trial court found that, the Applicants were unable to maintain themselves and the respondent was found to be a person having sufficient means to provide separate maintenance allowance to the Applicants and, therefore, vide Judgment and Order dated 30th December, 1999, the learned Judicial Magistrate, [F.C.], Shevgaon allowed Cri.Misc.Appln.No.59/92 in part and directed that the respondent shall pay monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.400/- per month to Applicant No.1 – Dwarkabai and further directed him to pay maintenance @ Rs.250/- per month, each to the applicant Nos. 2 & 3, from the date of application, till they attains the age of majority. [4] The respondent was dissatisfied by the said Judgment and Order, therefore, he filed Cri.Revision Application before the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. Said Cri.Revn.Appln. was registered as Cri. Revn. Appln.No. 31/2000 and said was made over on the file of the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. [5] After hearing the parties to the Cri.Revision Application, the learned Revisional Court was pleased to allowed the said Cri.Revision Application, in part. Said Cri.Revn.Appln. was registered as Cri. Revn. Appln.No. 31/2000 and said was made over on the file of the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. [5] After hearing the parties to the Cri.Revision Application, the learned Revisional Court was pleased to allowed the said Cri.Revision Application, in part. The learned Revisional Court was pleased to dismiss the claim of maintenance filed on behalf of Applicant No.1 - Dwarkabai/wife however, maintained the order of maintenance granted in favour of Applicant Nos. 2 & 3. The ground for refusal of maintenance to the wife ascribed by the Revisional Court in the Judgment was that, Applicant No.1 - Dwarkabai/wife was able to maintain herself. Further the Revisional Court was of the view that, since the prosecution launched in the year 1991 for the offence punishable U/Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was culminated in acquittal of the respondent/husband and since said order of acquittal was not challenged, therefore, it cannot be said that, the respondent/husband neglected the Applicants. [6] I have heard Mr. A.M. Hajare, learned counsel for the Applicants and Mr. P.B. Vikhe, learned counsel for the Respondent. With their able assistance, I have gone through the Judgments and Orders passed by both the courts below. [7] The learned counsel appearing for the Applicants submitted that the learned Revisional Court has committed the mistake at law, in reappreciating the evidence brought on the record. It is his submission that, the Judgment and Order passed by the learned trial court was based on evidence adduced by the parties hence, the learned Revisional Court ought not readily upset such findings of facts based on evidence. Per contra, Mr. Vikhe, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/husband supported the judgment passed by the learned Revisional Court and prayed that this Criminal Revision Application be dismissed. [8] In so far as the findings recorded by the Revisional Court that Smt. Dwarkabai/wife is having sufficient means to maintain herself, the learned Revisional Court has relied upon Exhibit – 93 to 95. Those are 7/12 extracts in respect of land Gat No.19/1 situated at village Bodakhi, Tal. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. In that behalf, it is necessary to make reference here that, Keshavrao Dhamne, father of Applicant No.1entrusted the agricultural land for cultivation amongst his two daughters, including Applicant No.1– Dwarkabai, himself and his two wives. Thus, it is clear that, said agricultural land was given only for cultivation. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. In that behalf, it is necessary to make reference here that, Keshavrao Dhamne, father of Applicant No.1entrusted the agricultural land for cultivation amongst his two daughters, including Applicant No.1– Dwarkabai, himself and his two wives. Thus, it is clear that, said agricultural land was given only for cultivation. [9] In the evidence, the suggestion was given to Applicant No.1 - Dwarkabai that she use to receive substantial income by cultivating land Gat No.19/1. Said suggestion was denied by Applicant No.1 - Dwarkabai. Mother of Applicant No.1 - Dwarkabai was also examined before the Court. In her evidence, before the Court, she also denied that land Gat.No.19/1 is owned by Applicant No.1 - Dwarkabai. It is to be noted that, the date of so called acquisition of title by Applicant No.1 in respect of land Gat.No.19/1 is not available on record. In the evidence, it was pointed out by Applicant No.1 - Dwarkabai that prior to her marriage, said agricultural land was transferred by her to her mother however, the mutation entry was remained to be done. The learned Revisional Court observed that since the mutation entry was not effected to that effect, therefore, the sale deed is hollow document and cannot be relied upon. The learned Revisional Court has missed important aspect that the Revisional Court was not deciding the title suit. Further the learned Revisional Court has readily accepted uncorroborated version of respondent/husband that from the said land, Applicant No.1 - Dwarkabai is getting income of Rs.1 Lakh per year. The learned trial court has rightly pointed out in his judgment that such uncorroborated evidence of respondent/husband cannot be accepted. [10] Merely because the respondent/husband was acquitted from the prosecution launched against him U/Section 498[A] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and as no further Cri.Revision/Cri.Appeal was preferred that by itself does not mean that Applicant No.1 was not refused and neglected to maintain by respondent/husband. In absence of the Judgment of acquittal on record, the Revisional Court ought not to have readily reached to the conclusion only on that ground that, the applicant was not neglected by the respondent husband. [11] The learned trial court on appreciation of the evidence of Applicant No.1 - Dwarkabai was correct in reaching to the conclusion that she was refused and neglected to maintain by the respondent/husband. [11] The learned trial court on appreciation of the evidence of Applicant No.1 - Dwarkabai was correct in reaching to the conclusion that she was refused and neglected to maintain by the respondent/husband. One more aspect is to be noted here that, the matrimonial house and parental house of Applicant No.1 - Dwarkabai is one and the same village and in fact, they reside in front of each other. Only the road separated these two houses. This fact is not disputed. The learned trial court in my view was right in stamping his approval to the case of Applicant No.1 - Dwarkabai that she was refused and neglected to maintain by the respondent/husband. [12] Thus, from the overall circumstances, which are observed by both the courts below, it appears to me that the Revisional Court has committed an error in disturbing the findings of fact, based on available evidence and material of record, recorded by the learned trial court, especially when the respondent failed to point out any perversity before the Revisional Court. Hence, the judgment and order of the learned Revisional Court needs interference to the extent it refused maintenance to Applicant No.1 - Dwarkabai/wife. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :- ORDER [i] Criminal Revision Application is allowed. [ii] Judgment and Order dated 30th September, 2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Cri. Revn. Appln. No.31 Of 2000 refusing the maintenance to Applicant No.1- Smt. Dwarkabai s/o Sambhaji Vetal/wife is hereby set aside and the Judgment and Order dated 30th September, 2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, [F.C.], Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar in Cri.Misc.Appln.No.59/1992 is restored. [iii] No order as to costs. [iv] Criminal Application No.2737/2006 is disposed of, as not pressed.