AMBALAL RANJI JAIN Vs. RANJANA AMTALAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -husband has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Opponent No. 1 -wife filed application against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month. It was the case of the opponent -wife that their marriage took place in the year 1979. Thereafter they stayed together for some time. They were staying together in village Adoni in Andhra Pradesh. According to the opponent -wife the petitioner was in habit of taking liquor and was beating her. On account of this cruel treatment she had been in the hospital for treatment of hysteria. Ultimately she was driven out in July 1975. On these and other allegations, she filed application for maintenance in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Mehsana. The learned Judicial Magistrate after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the opponent -wife was entitled to stay separate and claim maintenance from the petitioner -husband. He directed the petitioner -husband to pay an amount of Rs. 350/ - per month as and by way of maintenance from the date of application i. e. September - 26, 1977. He also directed the petitioner -husband to pay Rs. 150/ - as and by way of expenses of the application to the opponent -wife. The aforesaid judgment was delivered on March 3, 1980. The petitioner as well as the opponent - wife preferred Revision Applications. The Opponent -wife claimed that the amount be enhanced to Rs. 500/ - per month, while the husband prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the Revision Application and dismissed both the Revision Application as per his order dated March 31, 1981. The petitioner -husband alone has preferred this Special Criminal Application.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner appears to be that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. This contention has no merits. The learned Magistrate has correctly interpreted the provisions of Sections 125 and 126 of the Criminal Procedure Code and has rightly held that the Court of J.M.F.C. had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application. There is concurrent finding of fact. The order passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge appear to be eminently just and proper. There is no reason to interfere with the same. Hence rejected. Rule discharged. Application rejected.