ASHOKE KUMAR ROUTH Vs. SOVANA ROUTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is directed against the judgement and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Midnapore in M.R. Case No. 275 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner is the husband who married the opposite-party Sovana according to Christian Marriage Act on 28-12-1982. After their marriage they started living in their matrimonial home. It was the case of the opposite party before the Trial Court that the husband was a man of loose temparament and was addicted to wine. He began illtreating the wife and inflicted torture on her both physically and mentally over his demand for dowry. She lodged diaries against the husband for his ill treatment on her. She was even denied two square meals a day and was kept confined often in a room under lock and key. Ultimately she was driven out of the matrimonial home on 26-7-1983. She came back to her fathers house and lodged a diary on that date the case at the initial stage being M.R. Case No. 275 of 1983 was tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate who passed an order of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250 per month payable to the wife. The husband went up in revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Midnapore who set aside the judgment and order of the learned alief Judicial Magistrate and directed a trial of the case from the stage of argument. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on consideration of the materials on record and appreciation of the facts and circumstances proved by evidence on record passed an order of maintenance in favour of the wife and enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 250 to 300 per month.

(2.) It further appears that the husband filed a matrimonial suit being Mat. Suit No. 696 of 1983 in the court of the District Judge, Alipore for divorce against the opposite-party wife on the ground of adultery. In that proceeding the plaintiff-husband was ordered to pay the alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 175 per month to opposite-party, wife. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has ordered to adjust such sum against the money payable on maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Being aggrieved by such order the husband has come up in revision.

(3.) After hearing the learned Advocate appearing for the revisioner I find no merit in this revisional application. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has correctly appreciated the evidence and all the facts and circumstances in their proper perspective and has committed no illegally in arriving at his conclusion. The court being a court of revision will not interfere with the judgment of subordinate court or the findings arrived at there unless there is gross violation of the procedure or perversity in the reasoning resulting in miscarriage or total failure of justice Pranab K. Mitra v. State of West Bengal. In my view the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken a very reasonable approach as he has ordered adjustment of the alimony against the monthly maintenance awarded by him and the sum of Rs. 300 as maintenance is on the lower side in view of the present soaring prices of the commodities.