MALA BALAKISTAIAH Vs. PEDDA MOULALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Against a common order passed under Sec. 125 of the Crimial P.C. in R.C. No 12/83, both these criminal revision petitions are filed. CO. R.C. No. 4/86 is filed at the instance of the husband and the Criminal Revision Case No. 40/86 is filed at the instance of second wife.

(2.) Both the wives claim maintenance against the husband on the ground that he was having illicit intimacy with another woman and they were ill- treated and neglected by him. The Court below came to the conclusion that the husband is liable to pay maintenance to first wife. In respect of second wife, he held that, she is not entitled to claim maintenance as Sec. 125 of the Cr. P.C., does not contemplate payment of maintenance to more than one wife.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner is Crl. R.C. No. 4/86 contends that the learned Magistrate erred in not giving any finding with regard to the negligence or refusal to maintenance or any other factors enabling the grant of maintenance and as such, the order under revision, is liable to be set aside. The learned Magistrate, having discussed the averments on either side in depth, failed to give a finding with regard to the conduct of the husband with reference to the negligence or refusal to maintain the wives.