FAYYAZ ALI Vs. HAZARA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) arising out of the proceedings for maintenance under section 125 of the Crimial P.C. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the non-applicant no. 1 was treated with cruelty by the applicant physically and mentally. The learned Magistrate allowed the application for maintenance of the non-applicant and granted her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150.00 per month with effect from 13-2-1981 i.e. the date on which the application for maintenance was presented by the non-applicant before the learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge has affirmed the order of the learned Magistrate granting maintenance.

(2.) The learned counsel for the applicant has urged before me that there was a offer made by the applicant even during the course of his evidence to maintain the non-applicant no. 1 even by residing separately from his other family members. He was ready to maintain her and hence the maintenance should not have been granted to the non-applicant no. I by the Courts below. The learned courts below have found that the non-applicant no. 1 was treated with cruelty physically as well as mentally by the applicant. In this regard paras 10 and 11 of the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge are relevant. The learned Sessions Judge found that during the stay of the brief period of 17 days with the husband, the young girl of 18 was exposed to all sorts of attacks, physical as well as mental and the husband even doubted her fidelity. He, therefore, held that the non-applicant was treated with cruelty by her husband physically and mentally. The above finding is a finding or fact arrived at after appreciation of evidence on record. The view taken by the Courts below is a possible view on the basis of the evidence on record. It is, therefore, not open for me to disturb the same in the extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that for getting everything in the past, the applicant was ready to maintain the non-applicant no. 1 and, therefore, the Courts below erred in granting her maintenance. The said question is also considered by the learned Sessions Judge in paras 12 and 13 of his impugned order. In para 12 he held that the persistence on the part of applicant to assault the non-applicant no. I thrice during the period of 17 days and to attack her character and chastity and the other circumstances which had been established on record, would show that there was sufficient cause for the non-applicant no. 1 to stay separately from her husband. He held that although in the normal course he would have accepted the above submission on behalf of the applicant, the circumstances established on record in the instant case would not permit him to accept his submission because the non-applicant no. 1 in the instant case had established sufficient ground which had forced her to stay away from her husband. He, therefore, held that the union of the applicant with the non-applicant no. 1 was detrimental from the point of view of the wife because her mental state was quite apparent from the admissions given by the applicant and also from the testimony which chanda, the witness examined by her had given in the instant case. It is thus clear that the learned Sessions Judge has drawn his own inference on record. Therefore, even assuming that there is some other view possible in the instant case, since the view taken by the learned Sesssons Judge is a possible view on the basis of the material on record. It is not possible for me to disturb the same under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482, Crimial P.C. There is, therefore, no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the applicant that in view of his offer to maintain the non-applicant no. 1, no maintenance should be granted to the non-applicant no. 1.