SHIVAJI Vs. RADHABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalna in Criminal Revision Application No. 26 of 1982 arising out of order dated 24th Feb., 1982 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 4 of 1981, whereby he dismissed the Respondent's Petition for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and directed the Petitioner husband to pay maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs. 75 per month from 24-2-1982.

(2.) It is not disputed that the Petitioner is the husband of Respondent-Radhabai. Their marriage, according to Hindu rites, took place and after the marriage they resided together for about one and half years. Thereafter, the Respondent shifted to her parents' house. The Respondent alleged that she was ill-treated by the Petitioner and ultimately he beat her and drove her out of the house saying that he did not like her and since then she was staying with her parents. She had also urged the second ground of remarriage of the Petitioner, but that was not proved. She claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 per month from the Petitioner. The learned Magistrate on considering the evidence found that the petitioner-wife failed to prove that the respondent-husband refused or neglected to maintain her and on such finding he dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved, the wife preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 26 of 1982 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalna. The learned Sessions Judge, after reconsidering the evidence on record, found that the petitioner-wife prove d that her husband gave her ill-treatment and drove her out of the house and that he refused or neglected to maintain her. On such finding, the learned Sessions Judge held that the wife was entitled to maintenance and no considering the evidence as to the requirements of the wife and the, income of the husband, he fixed the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75 per month. Feeling aggrieved, the husband preferred this revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner-husband contends that the learned Sessions Judge in revision could not have re-appreciated the whole evidence and could not have reached a different conclusion than that was reached by the learned Magistrate. He submitted that the learned Magistrate had considered the evidence adduced by both the parties and had rightly reached the conclusion that the wife failed to prove that her husband refused or neglected to maintain her and as such he was right in dismissing the petition.