KANHAIYALAL Vs. KESHARBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second attempt of the applicant husband to get an order of maintenance passed against him for paying maintenance to his wife and minor children, his revision application against the trial Court's judgment having failed. It is submitted that the proceedings were initiated 4 years after the claimant/wife was alleged to have been forcibly driven out of her matrimonial home. It was further submitted on behalf of the applicant/husband that the non-applicant No. 1 wife had deserted the applicant. She had gone to her parents place at the time of delivery of the youngest child and did not return thereafter without any reasonable cause. It was submitted that the second marriage of the applicant was not proved and the finding in this regard was based on in admissible evidence and unreasonable inference from entries in ration card. It was also disputed that the nonapplicant No. 1 was unable to maintain herself and the children. It was lastly submitted that the applicant was ready and willing to keep the non-applicants with him and they have no right to live separately without reasonable excuse and still claim maintenance. I have heard the arguments and have also gone through the record. The Trial Court has found a fact that the applicant has taken a second wife which gives the non-applicant No. 1 a reasonable ground for living separately. The Trial Court has also found after appreciating the evidence laid by the parties that the non-applicant No. 1 is unable to maintain herself and her children. The quantum of maintenance awarded is also based on the evidence before the Court. The Revisional Court also after perusing the entire record has confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and it's order. In AIR 1980 SC 1436 the Supreme Court has held that in questions which are pre-eminently question of fact, the High Court is not justified in substituting its own view for that of the Magistrate. The same limitation applied to the Sessions Judge and he has correctly refused to interfere in the matter. There is therefore, no scope for interference with the Judgment of the lower Court under the inherent powers of the Court Under Section 482 Cr. P. C. which have to be used to prevent abuse of the Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This is not a case in which interference with the orders of the lower Courts is called for. The application is, therefore, dismissed.