LAWS(BOM)-2003-6-48

WAHIDKHAN MAJIDKHAN Vs. BADRESHMIN WAHIDKHAN

Decided On June 23, 2003
WAHIDKHAN MAJIDKHAN Appellant
V/S
BADRESHMIN WAHIDKHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application is filed by applicant Wahidkhan majidkhan challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, akola in Criminal Revision Application No. 271 of 1998 on 7-4-99 whereunder the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, Akola in Misc. Criminal Case No. 169 of 1997, dated 5/08/1998 is set aside. In effect, the prayer of the applicant for cancellation of maintenance has been rejected.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. B. N. Mohta, the learned Counsel for non-applicant no. 1. None for the applicant No. 1.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the applicant was husband of non-applicant No. 1. Non-applicant No. 1 had filed Misc. Criminal Case No. 315 of 1993 in the Court of judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola claiming maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The lower Court allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs. 200/- p. m. to the non-applicant. The applicant had challenged that order of maintenance by preferring revision application before the Sessions Court. Admittedly, that revision application was dismissed and the order passed by the Magistrate granting maintenance came to be confirmed. Thereafter, the applicant gave divorce to the non-applicantion 31st January, 1995 and on the basis of that, he filed Misc. Criminal case No. 169 of 1997 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court no. 11, Akola, under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of maintenance awarded to the wife. The learned Magistrate allowed the application by his order dated 5/08/1978 and thereby the order granting maintenance to non-applicant No. 1 was set aside. Non-applicant no. 1 challenged that order by preferring Criminal Revision No. 271 of 1998 before the Sessions Judge, Akola, who, by his order dated 7-4-99, set aside the order passed by the Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 169 of 1997. This impugned order is under challenge.