Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of parties.

2. The petitioner is wife (original applicant), who was approved maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month by 10th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur on 1.9.2012 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 21/2012, to be paid by the respondent No. 2 Vishal (hereinafter referred to as the respondent). The respondent filed Criminal Revision No. 75/2012 and the Sessions Judge, Latur, overturned the decision and the application for maintenance by the petitioner came to be rejected.

3. The case of petitioner, in brief, as appearing from the record of trial Court, can be stated to be as under:

(a) Petitioner was married to the respondent on 27.4.2009 at Borgaon, Taluka Chakur, District Latur. On and before 28.8.2010, respondent had from time to time severely beaten the petitioner and given her mental and physical torture. On 27.8.2010, she was beaten and taken to Police Station, Chakur and respondent tried to give false complaint against her, but the police, after talking to petitioner, realised that the respondent was trying to give false complaint and they made the parties understand and sent them back home. However, the respondent, his father and relatives, in the night, tried to push the petitioner in a well and tried to kill her, but because of shouting by the petitioner, people gathered and she was saved. She was then kept in a room and next day morning she was again beaten and ornaments from her person were removed and she was reached to the place of her parents at Latur.

(b) Parents of petitioner and respectable persons of the society many times tried to convince the respondent and his parents to let petitioner live in the matrimonial home, but the respondent refused. Thus, the application before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class.

(c) According to the petitioner, the respondent earns Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from business as commission agent in Market Yard at Chakur. Similarly, the respondent has Gat No. 142/3 at Anandwadi, Chakur and there is orchard of grapes. His parents are in Government service and he is the only son. The daughters are also married. There are agricultural properties in the name of his parents also which are irrigated lands. Thus, the application for maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month.

4. In the trial Court, the petitioner examined herself and her brother Vikas Kondiba. Respondent examined himself and one Dashrath Ganpatrao Lomte, who is husband of his cousin sister. The petitioner brought on record documentary evidence of 7/12 extracts of agricultural properties.

5. Trial Court examined the evidence and found that petitioner was entitled to the maintenance, but, as mentioned, the Sessions Court reversed the decision.

6. I have heard counsel for both sides. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sessions Court wrongly went into the evidence of another proceedings between the parties at the stage of revision and put the blame on petitioner that the marriage was not consummated, and rejected the application for maintenance. According to the learned counsel, looking to the object of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short), the maintenance could not have been declined when apparently the parties are residing separate and the husband has neglected to maintain his wife.

7. Counsel for respondent submitted that, the observations and findings recorded by the revisional Court are correct and the maintenance has rightly been refused. The counsel referred to the judgment of the Sessions Court to say that, apart from the ground of marriage not getting consummated, there are other reasons also recorded by the Sessions Judge for refusing to grant maintenance. The respondent relied on the affidavit-in-reply which has been filed in this proceedings.

8. In present Writ Petition, my concern is whether the judgment an order passed by the revisional Court can be said to be legally maintainable