HAFIJJABI A AZIZ Vs. ABDUL AZIZ KADIRKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-wife has filed this Revision against the rejection of her claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, when he exercised revisional powers for setting aside the original order of the grant of maintenance. The said original order was passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parola, in Criminal Misc. No. 15 of 1978 and it is this order that has been set aside by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Criminal Revision Application No. 70 of 1980.

(2.) A few facts are necessary to be stated for deciding the controversy between the parties. The marriage between the parties took place in 1969 and it appears that the couple lived happily for about five years, at Indore. In 1975 sister of the wife was to be married, at Amalner and hence the husband and the wife both came to Amalner to attend the said marriage. After the marriage was over, the couple stayed at Amalner for some time and the case of the wife is that thereafter the husband went away and did not care for the wife. There was some exchange of notices between the parties and then the wife presented an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parola, claiming maintenance. Her case is that the husband neglected or refused tot maintain her and that he has also kept a mistress. The parties led evidence and the Judicial Magistrate granted a maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month.

(3.) The husband took the matter is revision to the Court of Sessions at Jalgaon, viz., Criminal Revision Application No. 70 of 1980 and the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, recorded a finding that the husband has not kept any mistress. However, he held that the woman who has been living with the husband is his first wife. The Additional Sessions Judge found that the husband has not refused or neglected to maintain the wife and that the wife has no right to live separately. There is also a vague statement that though the wife has stated that she has no source of income still, there is no other evidence to prove. It is in this way that the wife's application has been rejected.