BHAGIRATHIBAI @ BHAGWATI Vs. ASHOK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Application is directed against the order dated 14.7.1995 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 965/1994, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge al - lowed the same and set aside the order of maintenance dated 28.2.1994 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur.

(2.) THE applicant is the wife of non -applicant No. 1 and the marriage was performed in the month of March, 1990 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs at Nagpur. The applicant after marriage was residing with the non -applicant No. 1 at his house. The applicant and non -applicant No. 1 stayed together happily only for a period of 15 days and thereafter the non -applicant No. 1 and his parents started ill -treating the applicant on account of demand of money. The life of the applicant at the house of the non -applicant No. 1 became miserable and intolerable due to cruelty meted out to her by the non -applicant No. 1 and his parents and, therefore, in the month of May, 1990, the applicant left the house of the non -applicant No. 1 and started residing with her parents. Since the non -applicant No. 1 has neglected and refused to maintain the applicant, the applicant initiated the proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class after taking into consideration the recitals in the application as well as the evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the applicant is entitled for maintenance and directed the non -applicant No. 1 to pay maintenance to the applicant @ Rs. 200/ - p.m. from the date of application.

(3.) THE IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in view of the Judgment of this Court in a case of Marotrao v. Chandrakanta and Ors.s, reported in Mah. L.J. 1981, page 907 held that the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are basically civil in nature and ingredients of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. cast duty upon the applicant to aver three facts; (i) that she is the wife of non -applicant; (ii) that the non -applicant has sufficient means, yet he is refusing or neglecting to maintain her; and (iii) that she herself is unable to maintain herself; similarly another Judgment of this Court reported in 1982 M.L.J. 167 Kewaldas v. Kunda; came to the conclusion that the present applicant has not stated in her application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C that she is unable to maintain herself nor she has deposed to that effect in her evidence. In that view of the matter, the Revisional Court on the basis of the ratio laid down in the above referred authorities came to the conclusion that the applicant is not entitled to get the maintenance from the non -applicant husband and, therefore, set aside the order of maintenance passed by the Trial Court.