RAMDAS Vs. BAYAATAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant/ original opponent Ramdas against whom an order for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been passed. That order was passed in favour of his wife Babytai and the daughter named Yogita, each of them were to get Rs. 150/ - per month from the applicant.

(2.) THE learned Magistrate before whom the proceeding was started made an enquiry into the application, heard the defence of the applicant and having given an opportunity to both the sides to adduce evidence, recorded the finding that there was a neglect and the applicant Ramdas was liable to pay maintenance as stated above. Although the original claim made by the wife, the son and two daughters was to the extent of Rs. 1,500/ -, still the learned Magistrate on due enquiry quantified the amount of Rs. 150/ - only in favour of the wife and original applicant No. 4 Yogita, who are the two respondents before this Court.

(3.) SINCE the Sessions Court dismissed the revision, applicant Ramdas had moved this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The short question to be considered is as to whether there was a miscarriage of justice as a result of necessary piece of evidence having not been considered by the two Courts below, any wrong conclusion came to be reached by them and when this could be so, such could be a fit case for interference as drawing a proper inference was the basic task of both the Courts below. I have heard both the learned Advocates as to on what account and which of the part of the evidence which should have been considered and if considered, the conclusion which both the Courts below reached could not have been reached and an interference by this Court would be necessary.