USHABEN GOVINDBHAI PARMAR Vs. RAMESHBHAI MAFATLAL SENMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner original applicant has prayed for an appropriate order quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.04.2007 passed by the learned Revisional Court i.e. Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 21 of 2007 in allowing the said Revision Application by quashing and setting aside the order dated 04.01.2007 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Kalol in Criminal Misc. Application No. 11 of 2005.

(2.) The petitioner herein original complainant submitted an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Kalol being Criminal Misc. Application No. 11 of 2005 for getting maintenance from respondent No.1 husband. Learned J.M.F.C., Kalol vide judgment and order dated 04.01.2007 partly allowed the said application directing respondent No.1 to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1200/- per month to the petitioner from the date of the application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 04.01.2007 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Kalol in Criminal Misc. Application No.11 of 2005, respondent No.1 husband preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 21 of 2007 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar. That the learned Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar vide judgment and order dated 27.04.2007 allowed the said Revision application by quashing and setting aside the order dated 04.01.2007 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Kalol awarding maintenance to the petitioner herein. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 27.04.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Criminal Revision Application No.21 of 2007, the petitioner original applicant has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr.Raval, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner original applicant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Revisional Court has materially erred in allowing the Revision Application and quashing the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Kalol awarding maintenance to the petitioner. He has further submitted that Revisional Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the application for maintenance has been filed after a period of seven years. That the Revisional Court has further erred in coming to the conclusion that it is the petitioner who has deserted the husband, and is not ready and willing to stay with the husband without justifiable reason. He has further submitted that infact the petitioner wife waited for some time to get fruitful result and some amicable way would come out and hence, the application for maintenance was preferred late and therefore, the application of the petitioner for maintenance could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay. It is further submitted by him that the learned Revisional Court has materially erred in coming to the conclusion that it appears from the record that there was no demand for dowry from petitioner's mother-in-law. That she was ill-treated and tortured by the husband cannot be accepted as concrete evidence. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present petition by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Revisional Court.