SANGITA ARUN MHASVADE Vs. ARUN ABA MHASVADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Revision Application is filed by the Petitioner-wife, challenging the legality and correctness of the Order dt. October 30, 1982, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune dismissing her application for maintenance under S. 125 of the Cri PC. The petitioner alleges that she was married to the first Respondent in or about 1970 and out of the said wedlock she gave birth to three children. The Petitioner filed an application under S. 125 of the of Cr PC on or about December 11, 1979 alleging that the First Respondent has failed and neglected to maintain her and her child and therefore, he be ordered to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- to herself and Rs. 50/- to her son.

(2.) The First Respondent opposed this application on several grounds. It was averred by the First Respondent that the Petitioner has been living in adultery with one Divate and she has voluntarily left his house some time in the month of August 1979 and since then she has been residing with Mr. Divate and therefore, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. He also further averred that it is the Petitioner who on her own left the house and in order to attract the provisions of S. 125, the Petitioner has to plead and prove that the First Respondent is guilty of neglect or refusal to maintain. The conduct of the Petitioner therefore, does not justify any separate maintenance, application is false and the same be rejected. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ist Court, Pune, by his Order dt. March 30, 1982 allowed the application of the Petitioner and directed the First Respondent to pay Rs. 75/- per month to the petitioner and Rs. 25/- per month to her son Sachin. Aggrieved by this Order, the First Respondent preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 191 of 1982 whereas, the petitioner and her son preferred Revision Application No. 147 of 1982 praying for enhancement of the maintenance allowance. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing both the parties, by his Order dt. October 30, 1982 allowed both the Revision Applications partly and substituted the following order :

(3.) Shri Shaunk Satpute, the learned Advocate, appearing for the First Respondent supported the Order passed by the Sessions Court. He urged that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in setting aside the finding reached by the trial Magistrate because he had not considered the entire evidence on record and non-consideration of such material evidence has vitiated the finding.