A. GANGADHARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) SHAHZADI Begum has filed this revision questioning the order of the Sessions Judge, Khammam, allowing the petition filed by her husband, Mohd. Abdul Gaffar, to set aside the order of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem, awarding maintenance to her at Rs. 75. 00 per month.

( 2 ) SHAHZADI Begum is the wife of Mohd. Abdul Gaffar, the respondent. Abdul Allem, aged about 2 years is their son, Shahzadi Begum (Petitioner) and Mohd. Abdul Gaffar (respondent) were married on 14/04/1974. According to the petitioner, the respondent was ill-treating her and ultimately forced her to leave the house on 1/02/1975 and was not providing any maintenance for her or their son. She further stated that the respondent had divorced her on 14/01/1978 and had married again. She had not remarried. The respondent is working as a Fitter in the Singareni Collieries at Kothagudem and gets a monthly income of Rs. 600. 00. Their son is still under her guardianship and protection. She filed the petition under Section 125, Cr. P. C. for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200. 00 per month for her and her minor son from the date of the petition.

( 3 ) THE respondent contested the petitioner denying the allegations of illtreatment and desertion. According to him, the petitioner is a quarrelsome lady and was insisting upon the respondent to separate from his parents for which he refused and ultimately on 1/02/1976 she went away to her parents house carrying her jewellery. He says that he made efforts to bring her back and live with her in vain. He admitted that he had divorced her and had remarried. He stated that he was a trainee fitter getting a salary of Rs. 375. 00 per month and he had to feed his parents, second wife and his unemployed brother and sister.

( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate held that the petitioner had failed to prove any ill-treatment or neglect on the part of the respondent. Since the respondent had divorced the petitioner, and the latter had not re-married, he held that the petitioner was entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75. 00 per month. For the minor son he granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 30. 00 per month.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by his order in granting maintenance to the petitioner, the respondent filed a revision in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Khammam. He did not question the grant of maintenance to the minor son. The learned Judge allowed the revision holding that the petitioner failed to prove any ill-treatment or neglect on the part of the respondent and, therefore, she was not entitled for any maintenance, even though she was divorced by the respondent and she had not re-married.

( 6 ) IN the revision it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the legal position, that the Court should consider the position of the parties on the date when the petition was filed, by that date the respondent had divorced the petitioner and re-married and the petitioner had not re-married, then there is no question of the petitioner going and living with her husband and it is his duty to maintain her, so long as she had not re-married. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the position of law is not different merely because the wife is divorced, and since the petitioner had failed to prove any neglect or ill-treatment by the respondent, she is not entitled for any maintenance.

( 7 ) IN order to decide this question it is necessary to refer to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This section corresponds to Section 488 of the repealed Code. But, a number of changes have been brought about by the new Section. The object of the Section is to provide a speedy remedy any also to prevent starvation and vagrancy leading to the commission of crime. Section 125 (1), Cr. P. C. provides, that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, una

Click Here to Read the rest of this document