CHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. challenging the order passed under Section 125, Cr. P. C. granting maintenance of Rs. 250/ - per month to opposite -party No. 2 Smt. Chandkali and her son. The matter was taken up in revision. The revisional Court has also confirmed the finding recorded by the trial court and had upheld the order granting maintenance of Rs. 250/ - to the opposite -party.

(2.) IN the present application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. the applicant's learned counsel has firstly challenged the two orders on the ground that the applicant was always prepared to keep opposite -party No. 2 but she was refusing to live with the applicant and in these circumstances she was not entitled to claim maintenance. Reliance has been placed on the statement made by opposite -party No. 2 in which she has stated that she was not prepared to live with the applicant as he has married again. It has been argued that the criminal prosecution under Section 494, I.P.C. was initiated against the applicant and the applicant was convicted by the trial Court. However, the appeal had been allowed and the case of the prosecution that the applicant has remarried again had not been believed. On these facts it has been stated that it had clearly been proved that despite the fact that the applicant has not married again, opposite party No. 2 was not prepared to live with the applicant. I am unable to accept the aforesaid argument raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. A bare perusal of the revisional order would show that on appraisal of evidence which was led in these proceedings a finding has been recorded that the applicant was either keeping the lady as his second wife or as a mistress. The case of the opposite -party was therefore, believed that the applicant was keeping another lady. If that be the opposite -party was justified in not living with the applicant.

(3.) IT has then been urged that the Courts below hive erred in law in awarding maintenance without first recording a finding on the question as to whether the applicant was in fact earning any amount. It has been urged that from the own evidence of the opposite -party it was clearly proved that the applicant had no source of earning. I am unable to accept to contention also inasmuch as it has come in the evidence of the applicant that there is a tube -well in the name of the applicant and that the applicant had 80 bighas of agricultural land.