JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the sole respondent, though notice was duly served and litigation cost awarded was also deposited by the petitioner. 2. The present petition under Section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code is filed assailing the impugned order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kamrup, Rangia in Crl. Revision No. 15/2010 setting aside the judgment and order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate1st Class, Rangia in Case No. 40(M)/2008 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. The Background fact of the present litigation can be summarised as follows : I. The petitioner got married with the opposite party on 13.03.2006 according to Muslim Shariat law. Out of the wedlock, a child was born on 04.09.2007. II. The respondent wife alleges that and the petitioner did not allow her to visit her parental home after the delivery of the child and she was forced to work different hard works, immediately after release from hospital. And having no alternative, she had to leave the matrimonial home with the new born and took shelter in her parental home. It is the further allegation of the wife that she was tortured by her in laws and husband and demanded dowry and accordingly, she lodged an FIR under section 498A IPC and filed the maintenance case under Section 125 CRPC. III. The stand of the petitioner husband is that the respondent wife after 7 days from release from hospital left the matrimonial home and started living at her parental house for the reason that she wanted to live and stay separately with her husband and children and not with the family member of her husband. The husband tried to bring her back on many occasions. However, the wife refused such proposal and even did not accept the Gift offered during the time of Eid festival. IV. The proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance to wife and the children continued, evidences led by both the parties. Witnesses were examined and cross examined. In the meantime, the police filed Charge sheet in the criminal case under Section 498A against the husband after investigation on the basis of the FIR filed by the wife. IV. The proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance to wife and the children continued, evidences led by both the parties. Witnesses were examined and cross examined. In the meantime, the police filed Charge sheet in the criminal case under Section 498A against the husband after investigation on the basis of the FIR filed by the wife. And after trial the husband/petitioner was acquitted from the aforesaid charges by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Rangia by its judgment and order dated 07.05.2011. V. The learned Magistrate, after considering the materials available on record dismissed the claim of maintenance of the wife. However, granted maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- in favour of the children. VI. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.12.2010 in the Case no. 40(M)/2008, the wife preferred a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Kamrup, Rangia and by the judgement impugned in the instant proceeding, the judgement of the Trial Magistrate was set aside and monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- was granted in favour of the wife. Being aggrieved the present petition has been filed. 4. Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Rangia is perverse inasmuch as the aforesaid judgment has been passed without considering the evidence of the wife who deposed as PW-1 and other witnesses. He further argues that the learned Magistrate below has rightly not granted any maintenance allowance to the wife as the the wife without any sufficient reason has refused to live with the petitioner and the learned Magistrate below has rightly concluded such fact on the basis of evidence. Therefore, Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside. 5. It is also argued by the Mr. Ahmed that the petitioner had continued to pay the maintenance amount awarded in favour of his son and continue to pay the same till his son becomes self-dependent. 6. In the above backdrop, now let this Court consider the evidence available on record. 5. It is also argued by the Mr. Ahmed that the petitioner had continued to pay the maintenance amount awarded in favour of his son and continue to pay the same till his son becomes self-dependent. 6. In the above backdrop, now let this Court consider the evidence available on record. I. The wife deposing as PW-1 in her examination-in-chief had alleged torture at the hand of the present petitioner and his family members and demand of dowry and she also deposed that for the aforesaid reason she had lodged a case under Section 498A IPC and also deposed that she had already deposed before the Criminal Court, where the proceeding was pending. She further deposed that her husband had admitted her in nursing home for the child birth and was with her during her stay at the nursing home. Her allegation is that her husband wanted her and the new born child to be in his family. However, she wanted to stay with her parents. She further deposed that she is not willing to go to the company of her husband. II. The PW-2 is the father of the PW-1, who also deposed in the similar line. However, he had admitted that his daughter was taken care by his son-in-law and attended his daughter and the grand children at the Goenka nursing home and also deposed that they wanted to take their daughter to their house instead of sending her to her matrimonial home. III. On the basis of such evidence available on record, the learned Magistrate came to a conclusion that the denial of the petitioner to allow her new born child and the mother to live in their parental home do not itself amount to a negligence or cruelty and it is quite normal that a father will like to keep his new born child and wife along with him. 7. From the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that such conclusion, in the given facts and depositions of the parties, is a reasonable views. The fact also remains that the husband was honourably acquitted by the criminal court from the charges of Section 498A in as much as the allegation levelled upon the petitioner under section 125 Cr.P.C are also similar to the offences under section 498A. 8. The fact also remains that the husband was honourably acquitted by the criminal court from the charges of Section 498A in as much as the allegation levelled upon the petitioner under section 125 Cr.P.C are also similar to the offences under section 498A. 8. However, the learned Revisional Court reversed such finding on the ground that there is no evidence that any effort was made by the second party to bring the first party to his house to conjugal life. But fact remains that, in deposition of the PW-1, he has categorically testified that he went to his in-laws house to bring back his wife and son on many occasions and such deposition was not shaken by the prosecution. It was further deposed by the husband that on two /three occasions, including during the Eid, he went to the in-laws house along with his family members to give certain clothes, gifts etc., and to bring them back but the wife refused to accept even those gifts. Such evidence is also not shaken during the cross-examination. The husband also deposed that he is still willing to bring back his wife and child but the wife deposed that she will not go back to her husband. 9. In the backdrop of such evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the finding of the learned Revisional Court below is perverse. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kamrup, Rangia in Crl. Revision No. 15/2010 is set aside and quashed. 10. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall continue to pay the maintenance amount to his son till the son becomes self-dependent and the son will be liberty to file application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. For enhancement during such period.