MEENA BEGUM Vs. MOHD IDRIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Agarwal, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. Learned AG. A is present. I have also perused both the judgments.

(2.) LEARNED Special Judge (D. AA), Banda, had allowed the revision filed by the husband on the ground that it suffers from perversity and is against the weight of evidence on record. After a perusal of the order of the trial Court I am not in agreement with the findings of learned Spe cial Judge. He has given much weight age to the fact that the opposite party had sent a notice dated 19-9-1981 and the present ap plication for maintenance was filed after wards on 15-7-1982. He has further stated that he did not find any conclusive evidence from the statements of the applicant and P. W. 2 Mullu to show or prove that the revisionist was living in adultery with any other woman or he had put her to any physi cal torture. While recording this finding he had completely ignored from consideration the reply submitted to the above said notice by the revisionist-applicant. In that reply she had denied the allegations of the notice and had asserted that he had been harassing and beating her. The learned Magistrate had discussed the evidence thread bare of the witnesses whereas the learned Special Judge had in a most cursory manner, without discussing the evidence at all, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate.