ORDER : JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), by the de facto complainant/victim in C.C. No. 947 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally. The said case arose from a final report alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “ IPC ”). Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court, the de facto complainant has approached this Court by filing the present revision petition. 2 The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: PW1, Prajatha, is the legally wedded wife of the 1 st accused, and the 2 nd accused is his aunt. Their marriage was solemnized on 11.04.1994 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. Following the marriage, the couple resided in the house of the 2 nd accused. According to the prosecution, the accused misappropriated the 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments gifted to PW1 by her parents and thereafter subjected her to physical and mental cruelty in connection with demands for additional dowry. It is further alleged that on 03.10.1994, the parents of PW1 paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the 1st accused for the purpose of securing a visa to enable him to go abroad. Subsequently, on 05.03.1997, the 1 st accused allegedly obtained a further sum of Rs. 40,000/- from PW1’s parents under the pretext of purchasing an autorickshaw. According to the prosecution, both amounts were misappropriated and squandered by him. The prosecution further alleged that on 24.08.1998, the 1 st accused assaulted PW1 in front of her parental home. It was also alleged that on 13.02.2000, at about 11.00 a.m., the 1 st accused came to the residence of PW1’s parents, demanded an additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- as dowry and, upon refusal, kicked PW1 and caused her hurt. On the basis of these allegations, the accused were charge- sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC . 3. During trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and marked Exts. P1 to P9. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with respect to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and marked Exts. P1 to P9. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with respect to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence. They denied all such circumstances and claimed innocence. Though afforded an opportunity to enter upon their defence and adduce evidence, no defence evidence was let in. 4. Upon an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Magistrate found that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted both accused of the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC . Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition has been preferred. 5. Heard Sri. Madhu T., the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, and Sri. Suresh P.S., the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the impugned judgment of acquittal was rendered without a proper appreciation of the evidence and materials available on record. According to the learned counsel, the trial court adopted an erroneous approach in disbelieving the testimony of PW1, who, being the victim of matrimonial cruelty, had deposed regarding the ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her in the matrimonial home. It was further argued that the evidence of PW1 stood substantially corroborated by the testimonies of PW2 to PW4 and, therefore, the trial court ought to have found the accused guilty of the offence alleged. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the judgment under challenge does not warrant interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It was contended that the trial court had meticulously evaluated the evidence and arrived at a well- reasoned conclusion. According to the learned counsel, the complaint culminating in the present prosecution was lodged during the pendency of several litigations between the parties, including matrimonial proceedings, and it was in that background that the trial court found the prosecution case to be doubtful. It was further submitted that PW2 to PW4 are interested witnesses and that the trial court was justified in declining to place reliance upon their evidence. Hence, no interference is called for. 8. It was further submitted that PW2 to PW4 are interested witnesses and that the trial court was justified in declining to place reliance upon their evidence. Hence, no interference is called for. 8. This is a case where a married woman alleges that she was subjected to cruelty within the confines of her matrimonial home by her husband and his relatives. To establish the charge, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, of whom PW1 is the de facto complainant. In her deposition before the court, she narrated various incidents which, according to the prosecution, constituted cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC . 9. The learned Magistrate, after a detailed consideration of the evidence on record, found that the testimony of PW1 did not inspire sufficient confidence to sustain a conviction. While considering the question as to whether interference with the judgment of acquittal is warranted, it is apposite to note that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited in scope. Interference is justified only where there is manifest illegality, material irregularity, patent impropriety, misreading of evidence, or miscarriage of justice. 10. It is well settled through a catena of judicial pronouncements that the scope of interference in a revision against an order of acquittal is extremely narrow. Even where two views are reasonably possible on the evidence, and the trial court has adopted one such plausible view, it is ordinarily not open to the revisional court to substitute its own view merely because another view is also possible. 11. In the present case, it is evident from the records that the criminal proceedings were initiated during the pendency of matrimonial disputes between PW1 and the 1 st accused, including a divorce petition. The trial court has taken note of this circumstance while appreciating the evidence and has observed that the possibility of false implication cannot be entirely ruled out. At the same time, it must be observed that the mere existence of matrimonial disputes cannot, by itself, be a ground to discredit a criminal prosecution. Each case must be examined on its own facts and evidence. 12. The trial court has also noticed the considerable delay in reporting the alleged incidents to the police. At the same time, it must be observed that the mere existence of matrimonial disputes cannot, by itself, be a ground to discredit a criminal prosecution. Each case must be examined on its own facts and evidence. 12. The trial court has also noticed the considerable delay in reporting the alleged incidents to the police. This Court is conscious of the fact that in matrimonial matters, a woman may not immediately approach law enforcement authorities due to various social, familial, and emotional considerations, including the hope of preserving the marriage, concern for the future of the children, and the stigma often associated with matrimonial discord. Therefore, delay by itself cannot be treated as fatal in every case. 13. However, in the facts of the present case, the learned Magistrate, upon a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence, found that there was no convincing independent evidence to corroborate the allegations of cruelty. The testimonies of PW2 to PW4, who are either relatives or closely associated with the de facto complainant, were also found insufficient to independently substantiate the prosecution case. The findings recorded by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to the evidence on record. 14. Having independently considered the materials available and the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate, I find no illegality, impropriety, or material irregularity warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The view taken by the trial court is a plausible one based on the evidence available on record, and no compelling ground has been made out to disturb the order of acquittal. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.