PANNABEN RAMANLAL SONI Vs. JITENDRA KUMAR CHIMANLAL SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pannaben Ramanlal Soni wife of Jitendrakumar Chimanlal Soni has filed Cri. Revision Application No. 296/90 and Jitendrakumar Chimanlal Soni husband has filed Cri. Revision Application No. 386 against the judgment and order dated 30 passed by the learned J. M. F. C. Kalol in Maintenance Application which is filed by the wife Pannaben Ramanlal Soni being Cri. Misc. Application No. 46/90. Pannaben has prayed to award Rs. 500.00 in her revision application instead of Rs. 140.00 per month awarded by the learned Magistrate and Jitendrakumar Chimanlal Soni has prayed that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate awarding Rs. 140.00 per month be quashed and set aside.

(2.) The learned Magistrate found that the opponent-husband has made false allegations against the character of the applicant-wife and he has not led any evidence in support of those allegations. Not only that he himself has admitted in his cross-examination that he had never seen the applicant living with Govindram. Therefore according to the learned Magistrate it was a mental cruelly to the applicant-wife and therefore it would be a just ground for the wife to slay way from her husband. The learned Magistrate has disbelieved the defence of the opponent-husband that on account of the relations with Govindram the opponent-husband has given divorce to the applicant-wife for which Rs. 10 0 cash ornaments clothes etc. were given to the wife in the presence of her. However the learned Magistrate has also found that if decree of divorce is executable then the marriage between the spouses has not remained in existence therefore there is no question of applicant-wife to go to her opponents house and stay with him. Therefore even if the case regarding mental or physical cruelly is not believable even then now there is no question of the applicant to go and stay at the opponents house therefore the applicant-wife is entitled for the maintenance.

(3.) Mr. Sheth L. A. for the husband in Cr. Revn. Application No. 386/90 was unable to show any ground for interference with the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Magistrate who has fully appreciating the evidence on record led by the respective parties awarded maintenance to the wife. Mr. Sheth L. A. for the husband tried to take me through the evidence of the witnesses however being Revision Application this Cowl will not exercise its revisional jurisdiction and reappreciate the evidence on record. It cannot be said that the learned Magistrate while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses has committed any material irregularity either of facts or of law which calls for the interference by the hands of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.