LATILUNNISA USMANKHAN Vs. SAIYED ASHRAFALI AHMEDALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-wife field application for maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application was heard and decided by the learned Metropolitall Magistrate (Court No. 12) Ahmedabad. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that Opponent No. 1-husband was guilty of cruel treatment to the petitioner-wife and the petitioner wife was entitled to stay separate and claim maintenance. He therefore passed an order directing opponent No. 1- husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month from the date of the application i.e. November 17 1982 The learned Magistrate also directed opponent No. 1-husband to pay an amount of Rs. 100/- as costs of the application. Against the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate the petitioner-wife as well as opponent No. 1-husband both preferred Criminal Revision Applications in the Court of learned City Sessions Judge Ahmedabad. The petitioner-wife filed application for enhancement of maintenance while opponent No 1-husband filed application praying that the order of maintenance passed by the Trial Court should be quashed a and set aside.

(2.) The learned City Sessions Judge after hearing the parties allowed the application filed by opponent-husband and quashed and set aside the judgment and order of maintenance passed by the Trial Court. By the same order the learned City Sessions Judge dismissed the Revision Application filed by the petitioner-wife. The petitioner-wife has challenged the legality and validity of the order allowing the Revision Application filed by the opponent-husband and quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court. The learned City Sessions Judge thought that there was misreading of evidence by the Trial Court. In paragraph 6 of the judgment he has observed as follows:

(3.) Another ground on the basis of which the learned City Sessions Judge thought it fit to reappreciate the evidence is also not sustainable. According to the learned City Sessions Judge the finding arrived at by the learned Magistrate that even during the pendency of the case the husband had not shown any anxiety to take the wife was also the result of the misreading of the evidence. The entire observations made by the learned Magistrate if read in proper context clearly show that the learned Magistrate has specifically taken into consideration the offer made by the opponent-husband. The relevant observations on this point are as follows: