KHEM CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Presented in Chamber on account of the strike of the Advocates.

(2.) This revision is directed against revisional order granting maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month to opposite party No. 2. What appears is that the Magistrate refused maintenance to the wife only on the ground that the wife has been living in adultery. Finding of adultery was recorded by the Magistrate on the sole testimony of the husband who deposed that the wife herself admitted her illicit relation with a young boy aged about 18 or 19 years of her village. He further deposed that on his visit to her in-laws he saw the wife in compromising position with that boy. He was unable to name the boy. Learned revisional court disbelieved the husband and set aside the finding of adultery. He found that the husband has been earning his livelihood as labourer. He further found that the wife has no means. With these observations the revisional court allowed the revision and directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 150/-per month from 1-10-83.

(3.) It is, no doubt true that in revision evidence cannot be reassessed. But if in assessment of evidence a legal mistake has been committed by the trial court, the same can be corrected in revision. Cardinal principle is that in matrimonial or maintenance cases solitary evidence of a spouse attributing unchastity or adultery to the other party, should not be relied upon because such spouse is extremely interested in the case. Hence even if reassessment of the evidence done by the lower revisional court is set aside, the result would be the same, i.e. the finding of the Magistrate regarding adultery cannot be legally sustained.