SAFIYABEN MOHMED SAHID ANSARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in this writ petition, is the unfortunate wife of respondent No.2, who has been neglected by the husband after 22 years of married life on allegation of adultery, accepted by both, the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class as well as by Court of Sessions, in revision.

(2.) The facts of the case, in a narrow compass, are, undisputedly, the petitioner and respondent No.2 were married about 22 years prior to 1994, according to Muslim rites. Out of the wedlock, the petitioner delivered four children (three of whom must be major by now). Respondent No.2 is working with Post and Telegraph Department, at Surendranagar and has been allotted a quarter at Block No.2. The parties hail from Bihar. One Abid Wahab, who happens to be cousin of both the parties, had come to Surendranagar. He had no other relatives at Surendranagar and he had, initially, stayed with the couple and, thereafter, used to visit this couple often. The human relations, strange as they are, resulted into a suspicion into the mind of respondent No.2 and he started staying separately abandoning the petitioner and minor children on allegation of illicit relation between the petitioner and Abid Wahab. It is claimed that attempts were made to crease out the disputes with the help of community people, but in vain. Ultimately, the petitioner was required to approach the Magisterial Court with an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Magistrate, awarded maintenance to the children, but not to the petitioner, holding that the petitioner was leading an adulterous life. The learned Magistrate held that, although this aspect is not properly proved, the lady had no reason for not staying with the husband and, therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance and, ultimately, dismissed the application of the petitioner for maintenance. The order was carried in revision before the Court of Sessions, at Surendranagar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, enhanced the maintenance to the children, but dismissed the revision application qua the petitioner. This has given rise to the present petition.

(3.) Mr. Qureshi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has read the evidence before the Court. His bone of contention is that, there is gross misreading of evidence by both the Courts below and the findings of the learned Magistrate, as confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, are perverse, as they do not find support from the evidence. The findings are contrary to the evidence on record and, therefore, this Court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to do substantial justice to the petitioner.