JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) - One Smt. Bindu Devi instituted an application cast under the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned, wherein she claimed maintenance from the respondent/husband herein, both for herself and for her minor son. The application preferred by the Petitioner herein before the learned Magistrate concerned, stood allowed by the Magistrate concerned, whereby he pronounced a direction upon the respondent/husband, to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- per mensem to the applicant and Rs. 500/- per mensem to co-applicant No. 2. A direction was also rendered of the aforesaid liabilities arising from the date of Petition. The respondent/husband being aggrieved therefrom instituted a revision Petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kangra at Dharmshala. The latter under the impugned order, proceeded to allow the revision Petition, whereby he set aside the order recorded upon the apposite application by the learned Magistrate concerned. The wife/Petitioner herein is aggrieved therefrom, hence has proceeded to institute the instant Petition before this Court. 2. The reasoning, as assigned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for disallowing the apposite application, is grooved in the factum of sums of money borne in the Kisan Vikas Patras, preeminently with theirs'' standing uncontrovertedly purchased by the respondent/husband herein, in, the names of both the applicants'', hence, being sufficient for maintaining both the applicants. The aforesaid reasoning would hold strength, only upon apposite evidence(s) making graphic unfoldments qua the Petitioner herein holding possession of Kisan Vikas Patras. The learned trial Magistrate had proceeded to refute all the disaffirmative thereto arguments anchored upon the aforesaid facet, the reason for his refuting the arguments of the respondent qua the Petitioner herein holding possession, of Kisan Vikas Patras were anviled upon a "Samjhota" existing on file of learned trial Magistrate, with vivid underscoring therein qua possession of Kisan Vikas Patras being handed over by the Petitioner herein to her husband. The respondent/husband in his testification comprised in his cross-examination, has not therein denied the apt occurrence or the validity of execution of "Samjhota" inter-se him and the Petitioner herein. The respondent/husband in his testification comprised in his cross-examination, has not therein denied the apt occurrence or the validity of execution of "Samjhota" inter-se him and the Petitioner herein. However, dehors the said admission of the respondent herein qua occurrence and valid execution of a "Samjhota" inter-se him and his wife also with recital(s) occurring therein, of, possession of Kisan Vikas Patras being handed over by the Petitioner herein to him, yet, the learned counsel for the respondent herein has contended, that with the Petitioner herein in her cross-examination, denying the existence of any compromise inter-se her and the respondent, thereupon the trite fact occurring in the "Samjhota", of, hers handing over the Kisan Vikas Patras to the respondent also perse standing belied. He thereupon contends that the impugned verdict warrants reverence. However, the aforesaid submission is fallacious, especially when lack of any denial(s) in respect thereto, were, enjoined to emanate not from the Petitioner herein rather, was to emanate from the respondent herein, whereas, with the respondent admitting its execution also when he for falsifying all the apposite recitals borne therein, omitted to lead into the witness box, the Investigating Officer concerned of the Police Station, thereupon his relevant omission(s), render all the recitals borne therein to hold veracity. In sequel, the reasoning(s) assigned by the learned trial Magistrate for imputing credence, to the "Samjhota", was amenable for vindication by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereas with the latter, for, untenable reason(s) disimputing credence thereto, has hence committed a grave illegality besides impropriety. Predominantly also with the respondent herein, in the grounds of the apposite criminal revision Petition preferred by him before the learned Revisional Court, omitting to therein make any apt ventilations, in respect of validity of execution of "Samjhota" inter-se him and his wife also in respect of authenticity(s) thereof on all facets, thereupon an inference is bolstered, of, his admitting the validity of its execution besides his also admitting the truth of all recitals borne therein, whereupon he now is stopped, to, on any ground hence assail it. 3. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent herein has made a reference to the provisions occurring in sub-sections 4 and 5 of Section 125 Cr.P.C. provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an (allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,) from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. (5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order. thereupon, he contends that with the hereabove extracted provisions, casting an imperative obligation upon applicant No. 1, to, prove qua hers holding a sufficient cause, for, alienating herself from the matrimonial company of the respondent herein besides with a statutory injunction being cast therein upon her, to, also prove qua her prolonged stay with her parents, emanating upon consent in respect thereto purveyed by the respondent herein. He further submits that with the aforesaid apposite imperative statutory provisions, remaining unproved, thereupon the application cast under the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C., warranted dismissal. However, there occurs a clear display in the testimony of the applicant, of, hers during the period of her stay at her matrimonial home, hence being subjected to physical cruelty by the respondent herein. The aforesaid marital misdemeanors ascribed by her vis-a-vis the respondent herein, were concerted to be repulsed of their efficacy, by the counsel for the latter, during the course his holding the applicant to cross-examination, yet therein there occur(s) no eruption of any evidence in denial thereto. The aforesaid marital misdemeanors ascribed by her vis-a-vis the respondent herein, were concerted to be repulsed of their efficacy, by the counsel for the latter, during the course his holding the applicant to cross-examination, yet therein there occur(s) no eruption of any evidence in denial thereto. Even though, merely for the applicant besides her witnesses'' in their respective cross-examinations'' emphatically denying the relevant ascriptions made vis-a-vis the respondent, by each in their respective examinations-in-chief yet thereupon their apt ascriptions'' vis-a-vis the respondent as echoed by each made in their respective examinations-in-chief, would not perse constitute sufficient proof, in respect of the ingredients occurring in sub-section (5) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless predominantly, the fact of her(s) departing from her matrimonial home to her parental home also her prolonged stay at her parental home, may, constrain an inference especially with the respondent, not, making arduous efforts to retrieve her therefrom vis-a-vis her matrimonial home, of, his thereupon subjecting her to mental cruelty besides hers hence holding a sufficient cause, for not, resuming cohabitation with the respondent herein also an inference is bolstered, of the stay of the Petitioner herein at her parental home, hence emanating from an implied/tacit consent, in respect thereto being meted to her by her husband. Thereupon the ingredients spelt in sub-section (5) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. beget satiation. Even though, the respondent in his crossexamination has suo moto articulated qua his on 5-6 occasions visiting the Petitioner herein at her parental home, for beseeching her to rejoin his company but his efforts failing besides therein he has suo moto echoed, of, the Petitioner herein spurning his conciliatory proposal(s) spurnings whereof being reported by him to the Panchayat concerned, yet the aforesaid suo moto deposition(s) occurring in the cross-examination of the respondent herein, are vague and nebulous in respect of specificity(s) in timing of the days, month and years, whereat the respondent herein, hence visited the Petitioner herein at her parental home. Also his, not, disclosing the names of persons who accompanied him to the parental home of the Petitioner herein besides his not adducing evidence in respect of his reporting to the panchayat concerned, the purported spurnings by his wife of his conciliatory offers, thereupon beget an inference of the respondent herein miserably failing to discharge the onus, of, proving, of his during the prolonged stay of his spouse at her parental home hence, making arduous, tearing efforts, for retrieving her therefrom vis-a-vis her matrimonial home. Corollary whereof is hence of his encumbering the psyche of his wife with excruciating pain besides his purveying an implied consent to her, for hers staying at her parental home. Consequently, hence the statutory mandate cast under sub-section (5) of Section 125 Cr.P.C., begets satiation. 4. In aftermath the rearing of the aforesaid inference(s) begets a firm concomitant derivative of his wife holding a sufficient cause, to, alienate herself from the company of the respondent herein, conspicuously with her husband besetting her with evident mental cruelty, arising from his gross apathy vis-a-vis her prolonged stay at her parental home. Consequently, the revision Petition is allowed. The judgment recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III Kangra at Dharmshala is set aside whereas, the judgment rendered by the learned Magistrate concerned is affirmed. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of.