JAMILA AND OTHERS Vs. HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision application is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, on 23-5-1985 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, reduced the maintenance allowance granted to the wife from Rs. 150 p.m. to Rs. 60 p.m. and to a sucking child applicant No. 2 Nilophar from Rs. 50 to Rs. 40 p.m. after re-appreciating the evidence on the quantum of maintenance.

(2.) I have heard Shri V.N. Patil for the revisioner-applicant and Shri Mehadia learned counsel for the non-applicant. Shri V.N. Patil learned counsel for the revisioner-applicant invited my attention to a decision reported in Kalpana Ashok Takle Vs. Ashok Adinath Sonaji Takle and another, 1984 Mah. LJ 765 . Some what similar facts were in that case. In that case this Court had held that when the finding of the Judicial Magistrate is based on evidence and as also in favour of weaker section of the society and also to advance the intent of the legislation, it is no longer open for the revisional Court to set aside the finding by re-appreciation of the evidence unless the finding was manifestly perverse. In that case also the learned Additional Sessions Judge has interfered with the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate by reducing the maintenance allowance from Rs. 100.00 p.m. to Rs. 40 p.m. for the child. I have gone through the reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for reducing the maintenance allowance. They are not at all convincing. Apart from the fact that the appreciation of evidence as regards the quantum was not called for unless the appreciation made by the learned Judicial Magistrate was perverse. Rightly rejecting the contention mid: by the husband that sucking child did not require any maintenance allowance and after finding that the husband had sufficient means to pay for the maintenance of his wife and child as the family of the husband possessed S. No. 93/1 of 8 hectares, he had granted maintenance allowance of Rs. 150.00 p.m. to the wife and Rs. 50.00 p.m. to the child. This order was just and proper and should not have been interfered with by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola. The following order is, therefore, passed.

(3.) The revision petition is allowed. The delay of 14 days in filing this revision petition is hereby condoned, as sufficient cause is shown in the affidavit and the revision is heard on merits. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, on 23-5-1985, modifying the order of maintenance passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mangrulpir on 4-7-1984, is hereby set aside and the order passed by the J.M.F.C. on 4-7-1984 of maintenance of Rs. 150 p m. to the applicant No. I Jamila and to applicant No 2 Nilophar at Rs. 50.00 p.m. is hereby restored from the date of the application. Revision Petition allowed.