SETURAM Vs. SONMATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRIMATI Sonmati (non -applicant herein) had filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P .C., seeking maintenance allowance from her husband - - the present applicant Seturam and her application was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh, vide order dated 1.10.1986, passed in Miscellaneous Criminal case No.15 of 1985, and against this order, Shrimati Sonmati had preferred a revision petition being Criminal Revision No.127 of 1986, in the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, who, vide order dated 27.9.1988, allowed the revision petition by setting aside the order dated 1.10.1986 of the trial Court and maintenance allowance was awarded to Shrimati Sonmati at the rate of Rs.125/ - per month from September, 1988, and, being aggrieved by this order passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Criminal Revision No.122 of 1986, the applicant Seturam has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) ON behalf of the applicant Seturam, it has mainly been submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in re -appreciating the evidence and by reversing the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. The non -applicant had failed to prove refusal or neglect on the part of the applicant to maintain her. It was further submitted that the non -applicant was quite capable of maintaining herself.It has also been submitted that the Court had no jurisdiction to fix the maintenance allowance without arriving at a definite finding about the monthly income of the applicant. On the aforesaid grounds, it was submitted on behalf of the applicant, that the order passed by the Second Add1. Sessions Judge, Raigarh, was liable to be set aside and the order passed by the trial Court was liable to be restored.

(3.) THUS , it cannot be said that the learned second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, had committed any illegality in reversing the order dated 1.10.1986, passed by the trial Court in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.15 of 1985. There is no merit in the revision petition filed on behalf of the applicant Seturam and, hence the same is dismissed and the order passed by the second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Criminal Revision No.122 of 1986, on 27.9.1988 is confirmed.