SHOBHAN BHALKA KOLI Vs. MENABEN KALIA RUMALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition is filed by the husband of opponent No. 1 -wife. The opponent -wife filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 87 of 1980 in the Court of J.M.F.C, Chhota -Udepur, and prayed that the petitioner - husband be directed to pay maintenance for herself and for the minor child. It was alleged by the opponent -wife that out of the lawful wedlock a child was born and at the time when she had become pregnant, she had an occasion to go to the field at village Utikoi. There she was beaten by the petitioner -husband without any cause whatsoever. She was beaten by stone in her neck and thereafter, she was deserted. In this respect a criminal complaint was also filed. On these and other allegations she prayed that an amount of Rs. 75/ - per month for herself an Rs. 25/ - per month for the minor child as and by way of maintenance be directed to be paid by the petitioner that when the opponent -wife had become pregnant she had of her own gone to her parent's house. He had tried to persuade her to come back But she didn't. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the opponent -wife was ill -treated and was deserted by the petitioner -husband. Therefore, she was entitled to live separate and claim maintenance. The trial Court ordered the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75/ - per month for the opponent -wife and Rs. 25/ - per month for the minor child. The judgment and order passed by the trial Court is not produced on record by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the trial Court, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 2 of 1981 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, who heard the revision application, after hearing the parties, rejected the revision application as per his order dated August 21, 1981 . The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.

(2.) BE it noted that second revision under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable and therefore, the petitioner has filed special criminal application under Article 227 of the Constitution. This is nothing but an attempt to circumvent the provisions of law. There is no illegality or irregularity in the judgment and orders passed by learned Magistrate and the learned Addl Sessions Judge. Nothing is shown by the counsel for the petitioner to show that the judgment and order passed by the lower courts are in any way contrary to law or facts. I have gone through the judgment and orders passed by the learned Addl Sessions Judge. The Judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is eminently Just and proper and is not required to be interfered with. Hence rejected. Rule discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. Rule discharged.