SURAJ BHAN Vs. PHOOLPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CR . Misc. Nos. 554 -M and 2202 -M of 1987 are at the instance of the litigating spouses and are the result of an application filed by the wife under Section 125, Cr.P.C., on her behalf as well as on behalf of their two minor children. After a contest having been raised by the husband, the trial court came to the conclusion that he was guilty of neglecting his wife and children, and, thus, awarded maintenance @ Rs. 300/ - per month to the wife and Rs. 200/ - per month to the two children. Both, i.e., the husband and wife, preferred revision petitions before the Sessions Judge against this order; the husband for cancellation of the order passed against him by the trial court and the wife for enhancement of the maintenance. The judge while dismissing the wife's petition, allowed that of the husband to the extent that the quantum of maintenance awarded to her was reduced from Rs. 300/ - to Rs. 150/ -, per month. Order qua the minor children was maintained. Both are again before me under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

(2.) MR .Bali, the learned counsel for the husband urges that in view of the document Ex.R.1 dated 12th September, 1980, the parties had mutually agreed to live away from each other, and in view of that the wife was not entitled to any maintenance. Similar argument has been rejected by the two courts concurrently with the finding that subsequent to the execution of this document on 12th September, 1980, the parties had reconciled and started living together and thereby nullified the effect of this document. All that is contended by Mr. Bali in this behalf is that that part of the version of the wife that there was a reconciliation between the parties does not deserve to be accepted in the light of the evidence on record. I, however, see no merit in this contention of Mr. Bali. Even otherwise in these proceedings under Section 482. Cr.P.C., it is much too much on the part of the learned counsel to urge for the reversal of the factual findings on re -appraisal of evidence. Similarly, I do not find any substance in the petition of the wife when she urges that the quantum of maintenance awarded to her by the trial court should have been maintained. This aspect of the matter has been discussed in para 15 0f the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge with which I find no fault. Thus, both these petitions fail and are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.