JUDGMENT : M.G. GIRATKAR, J. 1. The present revision is against the judgment of Family Court in Petition No. E-79/2010 by which the application for maintenance filed by the applicant - wife came to be rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel Shri Borkar holding for learned counsel Shri Dhurwey for the applicant. He has pointed out observations of the Family Court and submitted that observations made by the Family Court are perverse and illegal and hence, impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. Heard learned counsel Shri Shende for the non-applicant/ husband. He has submitted that the applicant herself deserted the company of her husband. She has not proved any allegations before the Family Court, therefore, Family Court has rightly rejected her application. Learned counsel has submitted that wild allegations are made against the husband contending that he married second time but she has failed to prove her contentions, therefore, revision application is liable to be dismissed. 4. Perused the impugned judgment. Prima facie judgment appears to be perverse. Learned Family Court wrongly recorded its finding that there is oath against oath, therefore, applicant - wife failed to prove her contention. It is pertinent to note that proceeding filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is quasi civil and quasi criminal. It is a summary trial. 5. The applicant (hereinafter referred to as 'wife') has stated that she was beaten mercilessly by non-applicant (hereinafter referred as 'husband') and, therefore, she left the house of her husband. The specific evidence to corroborate her testimony is not required. There was no reason for a lady who has a son to desert her husband without any reasonable cause. 6. Family Court has to decide the matter on preponderance of probabilities. It is not a criminal case. The principles to decide the criminal case is different. The offence in criminal case is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Procedure to decide summary case is different from the decision of regular criminal case. Learned Family Court wrongly come to the conclusion that there is oath against oath and therefore, it could not come to the conclusion that wife has proved refusal and neglect. Findings recorded by the Family Court are perverse. Learned Family Court has not taken into consideration the contention of wife in respect of second marriage of her husband. Husband was cross-examined. Findings recorded by the Family Court are perverse. Learned Family Court has not taken into consideration the contention of wife in respect of second marriage of her husband. Husband was cross-examined. He has admitted that one lady is residing with him as a cook in his house since last two years. It is hard to believe that a female cook can reside in day and night at the house of her master. If she was a cook, then she should have left the house after cooking is over. This admission of husband clearly shows that one lady is residing with him for last two years. Admission of husband in his cross-examination clearly shows that he is enjoying marital life with another lady. He has not made any provision such as maintenance for his first legally wedded wife. 7. Learned Counsel Shri Shende has pointed out decision in the case of Deb Narayan Halder Vs. Smt. Anushree Halder reported in, AIR 2003 SC 3174 . From the plain reading of judgment, it is clear that application of maintenance was filed by wife. Allegation of demand of dowry and cruelty by husband not supported by evidence on record. It was also observed that without the reason given for her ill-treatment which were non-existent and wife left matrimonial home without any justifiable ground. Hon'ble Apex Court observed that wife is not entitled to maintenance. Cited decision is on different footings. In the present case, husband himself has admitted in his cross-examination that he is residing with another lady since two years. This itself shows that there is sufficient reason for wife to reside separately from her husband. Hence, cited decision is not applicable to the case in hand. 8. Learned counsel for the husband/non-applicant has placed reliance on the case of Sow. Sumanbai Ramesh Garje and anr. Vs. Ramesh Dagadu Garje reported in, (2014) AllMR(Cri) 3710. It is held by this Court that the wife left the matrimonial house on her own accord and respondent husband not responsible for the same, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. There is no dispute about the proposition of law. In the present case, wife has delivered a son from her husband. She has specifically stated that she was mercilessly beaten by her husband and, therefore, there is a sufficient cause to reside separately from her husband. There is no dispute about the proposition of law. In the present case, wife has delivered a son from her husband. She has specifically stated that she was mercilessly beaten by her husband and, therefore, there is a sufficient cause to reside separately from her husband. Her husband kept second wife with him and this is proved by the admission of husband itself. Therefore, the cited decision is not applicable to the case in hand. Procedure to decide criminal case is different. Evidence need not to be recorded in details and therefore, principle of beyond reasonable doubt theory is not applicable to the cases filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The procedure for deciding summary trial is given in Chapter XXI of Code of Criminal Procedure (From Sections 260 to 265). Findings recorded by Family Court are perverse and illegal and, therefore, impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, following order. ORDER : (i) Revision is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment of Family Court No. 4, Nagpur in Petition No. E-79/2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. The application for maintenance filed by applicant - wife is allowed. The non-applicant/ husband is directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicant-wife from the date of the application. (iii) The revision is disposed of in above terms.