SHAIKH KARIM Vs. SAIRA BAI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The non-applicants 1 and 2 had filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before J. M. F. C. IIIrd Court, Amravati, against the applicant claiming maintenance. According to non- applicant No. 1 Saira Bai, she was the legally wedded wife of the applicant Shaikh Karim and she lived for few months with him at his house. Initially she was treated well by the applicant but a month and half thereafter she was subjected to beating and other cruelty. She has further stated that the applicant is addicted to drinking and subjected her to all sorts of harassments. She was, therefore, forced to leave her house and go to stay with her parents. Non-applicant No. 2 Sbahzad is her son born from the applicant. She examined herself in support of her contention and also one Shaikh Aziz. The trial court rejected her application essentially on two grounds. According to the trial court, the applicant is required to maintain large number of dependents and it is not possible for him to provide separate maintenance to his wife and son. Thus according to the finding of the trial court applicant is not in a position to provide maintenance to his wife and son. The trial court has further found that there has been no neglect on the part of the applicant to maintain his wife and son. Essentially for these reasons the trial court rejected her application. This was challenged by the non-applicants before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati by way of a revision. The revisional court reversed the order of the trial court and granted maintenance to the non-applicant No. 1 at the rate of Rs. 50.00 per month to wife and Rs. 25.00 to the son Shahzad from the date of the application It is this order which is being challenged before me by way of present revision.

(2.) Mr. Rizwy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has taken me through the entire record and has urged that the trial court had given reasons for rejecting the application of the non-applicants and the reasons cannot be termed as perverse. According to Mr. Rizwy, the reasons given by the trial court are cogent and based on the material and evidence on record. Thus, according to him, the revisional Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction was not right in reversing the finding of facts.

(3.) One of the points on which the trial court has rejected the application is in the following words :