BABINANDA Vs. VIJAYKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. P.A. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the applicant. None for the non -applicant. The applicant/wife has impugned the order dated 12th July, 1996 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 1837 of 1995 filed by the non -applicant/husband, under which the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate granting maintenance to the applicant/wife.

(2.) THE applicant was married to the non -applicant on 15.5.1991. For some time, they lived happily together, but due to the fact that the applicant was treated with cruelty and assaulted by her husband (non -applicant herein), she was required to eave the matrimonial home on 19.10.1991 and went to reside with her parents. The applicant lodged a report with the police against the non -applicant/husband in respect of cruelty meted out to her, as she and her parents were not able to fulfil the demands made by the non -applicant/husband to bring cot, fan, furniture and some other household articles. It was also contended by the applicant that the non -applicant/husband is addicted to consuming liquor daily and used to abuse her in filthy language, which caused mental torture to her, that she was required to leave the matrimonial home in order to save herself from this ill -treatment and that after she went to reside with her parents, the non -applicant/husband had been to the house of her parents and threatened them that he would kill them with an axe, of which a report is lodged to c Police Station. It was the case of the applicant that as she was required to reside with her parents, due to the ill -treatment meted out to her by the non -applicant/husband, the non -applicant/husband has refused and neglected to maintain her, and as she has no source of income and unable to maintain herself, she requires Rs. 500/ - per month towards maintenance.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate found that the applicant has proved that the non -applicant/husband has refused and neglected to maintain her, though he has sufficient source of income and further that she is unable to maintain herself, and granted her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/ - per month from the date of the application, along with the costs. This order came to be challenged in the Court of Sessions. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, in exercise of his powers of revision, allowed the Revision Application filed by the non -applicant/husband and quashed and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate granting maintenance to the applicant/wife. It is against this order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the applicant/wife has approached this Court by way of the instant Criminal Revision Application.