ORDER:- The Criminal Revision Application is filed by the Petitioner-wife, challenging the legality and correctness of the Order dt. Oct. 30, 1982, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune dismissing her application for maintenance under S.125 of the Cri PC. The petitioner alleges that she was married to the first Respondent in or about 1970 and out of the said wedlock she gave birth to three children. The Petitioner filed an application under S.125 of the of Cr PC on or about Dec. 11, 1979 alleging that the First Respondent has failed and neglected to maintain her and her child and therefore, he be ordered to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- to herself and Rs. 50/- to her son.

2. The First Respondent opposed this application on several grounds. It was averred by the First Respondent that the Petitioner has been living in adultery with one Divate and she has voluntarily left his house some time in the month of August 1979 and since then she has been residing with Mr. Divate and therefore, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. He also further averred that it is the Petitioner who on her own left the house and in order to attract the provisions of S.125, the Petitioner has to plead and prove that the First Respondent is guilty of neglect or refusal to maintain. The conduct of the Petitioner therefore, does not justify any separate maintenance, application is false and the same be rejected. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 1st Court, Pune, by his Order dt. Mar. 30, 1982 allowed the application of the Petitioner and directed the First Respondent to pay Rs. 75/- per month to the petitioner and Rs. 25/- per month to her son Sachin. Aggrieved by this Order, the First Respondent preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 191 of 1982 whereas, the petitioner and her son preferred Revision Application No. 147 of 1982 praying for enhancement of the maintenance allowance. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing both the parties, by his Order dt. Oct. 30, 1982 allowed both the Revision Applications partly and substituted the following order :

"Claim of Sangita for maintenance allowance stands rejected. Arun Aba shall, however, pay to his son Sachin maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month with effect from 30-3-1982."

It is this order, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which is sought to be challenged by the Petitioner-wife in this Revision Application. Shri S.S.Deshmukh, the learned Advocate appearing in support of this application firstly urged that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed jurisdictional error while interfering with the finding of fact recorded by the trial Magistrate while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. According to the learned Counsel whether the First Respondent has failed and neglected to maintain the Petitioner was purely a finding of fact and it was not open to the Additional Sessions Judge to re-appreciate the evidence and set aside such a finding of fact. He therefore, urged that the impugned Order be quashed and set aside and the Order passed by the learned trial Magistrate so far as maintenance to herself is concerned, be maintained.

3. Shri Shaunk Satpute, the learned Advocate, appearing for the First Respondent supported the Order passed by the Sessions Court. He urged that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in setting aside the finding reached by the trial Magistrate because he had not considered the entire evidence on record and non-consideration of such material evidence has vitiated the finding.

4. In order to satisfy myself as to whether the Revisional Court was justified in interfering with the order passed by the trial Magistrate, while exercising his revisional jurisdiction, I have myself gone through the entire record and find that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge needs no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document