GOPAL SHIORAMJI DHABARDE Vs. SAU. LALITA ALIAS JAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision arising out of the proceedings initiated by the non-applicant under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance from the applicant.

(2.) The learned trial Court granted maintenance to the Non-applicant wife at the rate of Rs. 80.00 per month from the date of his order. The said order was passed by him on 12th Feb., 1982. The applicant directly preferred a revision in this court which was registered as criminal revision Application No. 69/1982 challenging the aforesaid order of the learned trial court dated 12-2-1982. This Court, however, by the judgment dated 17th Feb., 1983, dismissed the revision and affirmed the order of the learned trial court. However, the non-applicant No.1 had preferred a revision against the aforesaid order of the trial court dated 12-2-1982 by preferring a revision before the Sessions Judge, Wardlia, claiming enhancement of maintenance on the ground that the applicant was better placed and was earning a salary of Rs. 825.60 paise per month and therefore, she should have been granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200.00 per month from the data of the application. The learned Sessions Judge, Wardha, by his judgment dated 8th Nov., 1 983, allowed the revision filed by the Non-applicant and granted her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150.00 per month from the date of application filed by her in the trial court. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Sessions Judge dated 8-11-1983, the present applicant preferred this revision in this Court.

(3.) The sole question urged on behalf of the applicant is that when this has already decided the revision by the judgment dated 17-2-1983, the d Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence on record and enhance the maintenance by his order dated 8-1 1-1983 in revision. stated by both the parties at the bar that although the revision was pending before the Sessions Judge, Wardha, no attempt was made to call for the record of the said revision in this court and get it disposed of along with the revision filed by the applicant. No provision is brought to my notice that because the revision was pending in this Court, the Sessions Judge, Wardha, was incompetent to decide the matter filed before him in the same matter. Sec. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure conferred concurrent jurisdiction upon the High Court and the Sessions Judge to exercise powers of revision. Moreover, in this case, the question before the Sessions Judge was that whether the Non-applicant was entitled to maintenance at a higher rate from the date of her application. No such question was involved in the revision preferred by the applicant in this court and therefore there is no finding or decision by this court upon the said question. The order of this court in revision preferred by the applicant, therefore, cannot come in the way of the Sessions Judge, Wardha, deciding the revision before him. There is, therefore no merit in the above contentions raised before me.