GULZARI LAL Vs. DESSO ALIAS KULDIP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated February 8, 1983 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur in Criminal Revision No. 10 Addl of 1980 allowing maintenance at the rate of Rs. 60/- p.m. to the respondent by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur in case No 14/4 of 1979, husband of the respondent has filed this revision.

(2.) SHMT . Desso, wife of the petitioner, made a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming maintenance from the petitioner on the ground that he had ill-treated her and driven out of his house and refused to maintain her in spite of being possessed of sufficient means to provide the maintenance. The petitioner denied all these allegations and also denied having married with Shmt. Desso in the year 1960. He rather pleaded that he got married with Shmt Karmi in the year 1965 and from this wedlock he had four children.

(3.) MR . K.G. Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was wrong in interfering with the order made by the Magistrate on reappraisal of the evidence and the order passed by him, therefore, deserved to be set aside, and to buttress this argument, the learned counsel relied on a decision in Shamsher Singh, etc V. State of Punjab 1982 Current Law Journal (C and Cr.) 176. He also submitted that the amount of maintenance as awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was exorbitant. As against this, Mr. M.L. Sarin, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, argued that though ordinarily the revisional court will be slow to interfere with the order made by the Magistrate but if the appreciation of evidence is perfunctory and capricious, it is competent for the Sessions Judge to reappraise the evidence and the appreciation of the evidence by the Magistrate being perfunctory, the Additional Sessions Judge did not call for any interference.