BISARAD ALI Vs. SOTIYA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT Bisarad Ali has preferred this revision -petition against the order dated 15.3.1990, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahasamund (District Raipur), Misc. Criminal Case No. 40 of 1986, awarding maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 300/ - per month, from the date of application, i.e., 20.1.1986.

(2.) NONE has appeared on behalf of the applicant Bisarad Ali on the date of hearing. The grounds stated in the revision -petition filed on behalf of the applicant, are that the impugned order of the Court below is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and that the Court below failed to see that the non -applicant had failed to prove her marriage with the applicant and that the nikah of the non -applicant with the applicant had not been proved although such entires are available in the register kept with the Quazi; that the Court below failed to see that protection of section 125 of Cr.P.C. is available only to the legally wedded wife; that the Court below was wrong in not accepting the documents on 15.3.1990 before arguments as prayed by the applicant; and that reasonable opportunity to the applicant to defend his case was denied.

(3.) FROM a perusal of the record and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahasamund, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 40/86, it cannot be said that the said order is illegal, arbitrary or without jurisdiction. The grounds taken in the revision petition on behalf of the applicant Bisarad Ali, are not justified and it also cannot be said that the applicant was not given a reasonable opportunity to produce his evidence. There is no merit in this revision -petition preferred on behalf of the applicant Bisarad Ali and the same shall stand dismissed. The impugned order dated 15.3.1990, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahasamund, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 40/86, calls for no interference and the same is confirmed. AIR 1985 SC 945 followed.