( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel at some length. This revision application is directed against the summoning order on the basis of the complaint filed by opposite party No. 1 Suman Devi against her husband, Arvind Kumar and revisionists Suman and Saroj under various provisions of I. P. C. including 498-A, IPC. It is unnecessary to give the details of the complaint. It may be mentioned that the complainant had examined herself as a witness before the lower Court and had also produced four more witnesses namely her father Dharam Prakash, mother Smt. Ram Pyari, mother-in-law and Rejendra Prasad. All of them had supported the allegations made by her in the complaint. The statement of the said witnesses which were recorded on oath cannot at this stage, be disbelieved as the witnesses have not been cross-examined. May be that ultimately the above named witnesses are not believed by the Court and the case ends in the acquittal of the accused persons but at this stage it is not possible for this Court to arrive at a conclusion that whatever thay have deposed on oath was not the truth. The law presumes that a witness who gives statement after taking oath discloses the truth and