KISHANI DEVI Vs. LAL NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant miscellaneous petition is preferred against the order dt. 13/4/2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bikaner in revision whereby, the learned revisional Court partly accepted the revision preferred by the respondent and modified the order dt. 15/1/2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nokha in Criminal Case No. 19/2003. The petitioner being the wife of the respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, claiming maintenance for herself and her children. The application was allowed by order dt. 15.01.2008 and the Magistrate directed that the respondent shall be liable to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 500/ - per month to the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 200/ - each to his two minor children from the date of filing of the application that is 6/1/2003. The respondent husband challenged the order passed by the Magistrate and the revisional Court, set aside the order of maintenance to the petitioner's extent, but maintained the order of maintenance passed in favour of the two minor children. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant miscellaneous petition challenging the order passed by the revisional Court.

(2.) SHRI Shrimali Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Magistrate appreciated the material available on record in a just and proper fashion and held the petitioner entitled to receive maintenance but at the paltry rate of Rs. 500/ - per month. The revisional Court without any justification and for an extraneous considerations, set aside the order of maintenance passed in favour of the petitioner. He contended that the finding recorded by the revisional Court that the petitioner deserted the respondent and was living separately without any cause is without any basis and unsupported by the evidence available on record. He contended that the respondent did not appear before the trial Court to counter the petitioner's case and as such, the revisional Court was unjustified in disbelieving and discarding the petitioner's evidence and setting aside the order of maintenance passed in her favour. As per him, the revisional Court picked out a stray portion from the petitioner's evidence and ignoring the overall effect of her testimony, in a conjectural fashion, set aside the order of maintenance passed by the Magistrate in her favour. He therefore prays that the order passed by the revisional Court be set aside and the one passed by the learned Magistrate be restored.

(3.) I have heard the arguments advanced by Shri Shrimali the petitioner's Counsel and have gone through the impugned orders as well as the record.