SMT. PUSHPA BAI Vs. TAWAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicant feeling aggrieved by the order dated 13.03.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in Criminal Revision No. 67/2002, whereby the order dated 01.11.2002 passed by the judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsinghpur in MJC No. 47/2000, ordering the respondent to pay the applicant maintenance allowance @ Rs. 800/ - per month under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. from the date of application dated 30.03.2000 was set aside.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are given below: -

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the learned Magistrate has given cogent reasons in his order for arriving at the findings that the respondent has been willfully neglecting the applicant. But the learned Sessions Judge has reversed the aforesaid findings by misappreciating and misreading of the evidence on record. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set -aside and the order of the trial Court deserves to be restored.