SIRIYABAI Vs. SHRIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE preliminary objection, raised on behalf of the non -applicant, that the revision -petition, having been filed on behalf of the applicant, under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not maintainable, appears to be misconceived and devoid of any force, because, merely mentioning a wrong provision, would not make the petition not maintainable as the petition was rightly registered as a Criminal revision. The case law, cited above, on behalf of the non -applicant, does not support the contention of the learned counsel for the non -applicant regarding the aforesaid objection raised by him. The aforesaid objection, raised on behalf of the non -applicant, cannot be accepted.

(2.) IN proceedings under section 125 of Cr.P.C. a wife, who is unable to maintain herself, is entitled to receive maintenance from her husband, if the husband having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife. If a husband has contracted marriage with another women or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with her husband, According to section 125 (4) of Cr.P.C., no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. Now, in the instant case, both the Courts below have not placed reliance on the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant regarding the giving of alleged poison by the non -applicant to his wife Siriyabai at the time her father had come to take her at the time of Shivratri Festival, and is regarding the non -applicant having contracted second marriage with one Vimla of village Bichchikani. I see no reason to disagree with the finding of both the Courts below in this regard. A perusal of the record clearly goes to show that there is no reliable evidence, adduced on behalf of the applicant, which would go to show that the non -applicant had neglected or refused to maintain the applicant. In fact, there is evidence on record to show that the non -applicant had made the efforts to bring back the applicant from her parents' home, but the applicant had refused to go back with him and to live with him on the ground that there was danger to her life, but there is no reliable evidence to this effect that there was any danger to the life of the applicant which prevented her to live with him.

(3.) THUS , it cannot be said that the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, has committed any illegality, or that the order dated 15.3.1988, passed · by him in Criminal revision No. 47 of 1987, is perverse in any way so as to call for any interference in this revision. The contentions raised on behalf of the applicant by her counsel, cannot be accepted. AIR 1978 SC 47 distinguished. Revision dismissed.