A wife is entitled to interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, even if she has not specifically alleged that she was driven out of the matrimonial home by the husband, as long as there is evidence to support her allegations of torture and lack of maintenance.

1. BY this revision the husband petitioner has challenged the order dated 23rd November, 1993 passed in Misc. Case no. 32 of 1993 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, directing payment of interim maintenance allowance to the wife opposite party-

2. THE short fact of this case is that the petitioner and the opposite party no. 1 herein are the husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 24th November, 1990 according to the Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage they lived together as husband and wife. In the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the wife, opposite party no. 1 herein, stated that during the time of her marriage her father gave gold ornagments, utensils, furniture, bedding etc. She alleged that she was not allowed by the members of the husband's family to use the gold ornaments. During her stay in her matrimonial home she was tortured continuously by her sister-in-law who has been deserted by her husband. She further stated that her husband had taken her occasionally to her father's house and she complained to her husband about the torture by her sister-in-law but the husband could not find out any alternative for her. Ultimately, the husband told her to reside in her father's place for sometime so that he could make an alternative arrangement for living separately from his family along with her. Accordingly, she started living with her father's family. Till now, no arrangement was made for alternative accommodation by her husband. During this period of her stay in her father's house, it is alleged, the husband failed and neglected to maintain her and she has no independent income and /or means to maintain herself. On such allegation the wife, opposite party no. 1 herein, filed an application before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, howrah, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 32 of 1993. The husband, petitioner herein, was directed to show cause. But in the meantime the wife, opposite party no. I herein, made another application in that proceeding for interim maintenance on the ground that during the continuance of the proceeding she has no means to maintain herself. The husband opposite party (petitioner herein) in that proceeding; made a written objection to that application for interim maintenance. The learned magistrate after hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and considering the materials on record awarded maintenance allowance to the wife, opposite party no. 1 herein, at the rate of Rs.400/- per month from the date of the order. Against the said order the petitioner husband has come up before this court in revision.

3. APPEARING for the. petitioner husband, learned Advocates, Mr. Debaprasad Adhikari with Mr. Jiban Hari Mallick; submitted that there is no allegation in the petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. by the wife that the husband never tortured her or that she was driven out from her matrimonial home by her husband, the petitioner herein. In such circumstances, according to the learned Advocates as aforesaid, the wife opposite party no. 1 herein, is not; entitled to maintenance.

4. MR. Subrata Kumar Dutt, learned Advocate appearing for the wife, opposite party no. 1 herein, on the other hand, contended that though there is no allegation in the petition of opposite party no. 1 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that she was driven out by her husband from her matrimonial home but it has been alleged by her in her petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that as per the dictate of the husband she went to reside in her paternal house on the assurance of the husband that he would find out an alternative arrangement for living separate with her. Mr. Dutt further contended that there is no denial that since the days of her stay in her paternal house she was hot being maintained by the husband, the petitioner herein, and in a sens