IMPORTANT POINT
In a revision against order of maintenance under section 125, Cr. P.C., revisional court cannot take additional evidence to decide the criminal revision.

JUDGMENT

R.P. Shukla, J. - This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 23-1-1984 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge. Bulandshahar in Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1983, Salimuddin v. State of U.P. and others setting aside the judgment and order dated 26-9-1983 passed by the First Additional Judicial Magistrate in case No. 761 of 1982 Smt. Jaitoon v Salimuddin, under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Smt. Jaitoon, hereinafter called as the applicant applied for maintenance in the court of First Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar, alleging that she was legally wedded wife of Salimuddin, the respondent and a female child was borne out of this wed lock who later died. Thereafter she could not bear any other child and hence her husband started treating her cruelly. On 1-3-1982 he told her that he would not maintain her any more and that he wanted to contract a second marriage. On her refusal to go back to her parents he give her beating with Lathi and Stick. The neighbors intervened along-with her maternal uncle Shamsher. She sent for her father who came from Bulandshahar. Salimuddin also misbehaved with her father and turned her out after having relieved her of her ornaments and clothings. She left with her father in rags and she made a report in the police station sad got her-self medically examined. Seven or eight days after this incident her father along-with some other persons went to persuade Salimuddin for re-conciliation but Salimuddin did not agree. The applicant further alleged that the income of Salimuddin was Rs. 300/- per month and she claimed Rs. 300/- per month as maintenance for herself.

3. The applicant in support of her case besides herself examined Nazir, Abdul Hafiz, Dr. O.N. Srivastava, who bad medically examined her on 2.3.1982 and found seven injuries on her person and Constable Mahabir Singh, who proved the first information report lodged by her.

4. Salimuddin, the respondent filed his written statement on 6.5.1982 admitting that the applicant was her wedded wife alleging that it was the applicant who refused to live with him and that he was still willing and ready to maintain her as his wife. He has said in his written statement that he worked as a Carpenter and his monthly income was only Rs. 400/- per month. Salimuddin, besides himself, examined one Jumma to support his case. That facts that the applicant was the wife of Salimuddin and that a female child was borne to her and died and that thereafter she could bear no other child and that the applicant was living separately from 1-3-1982, have not been disputed. After having considered the evidence of the parties the Magistrate, found that the behaviour of the respondent, Salimuddin, was cruel towards the applicant and he neglected to maintain the applicant. He also found that the applicant was justified in living separately because of the cruelty of her husband and that she was unable to maintain herself and he awarded Rs. 150/- per month from the date of application i.e. 7-4-82, as maintenance.

5. Aggrieved by this order Salimuddin preferred a revision. In the revision the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar, admitted in evidence certified copy of the judgment of the Second Additional Sessions Judge dated 19-9-1983 allowing Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 1983. The aforesaid appeal was preferred by Salimuddin against the judgment and order of his conviction recorded by the Magistrate 29-6-1963 in a case prosecuted on the basis of the first information report made by the applicant, after she was beaten by Salimuddin. The Sessions Judge also admitted in evidence the certified copy of the plaint of a Civil Suit No. 280 of 1983 filed by Salimuddin on 29-9-1983 against the applicant for restitution of conjugal rights. Certified copy of the order of High Court dated 26-11-1983 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 10193 of 1983 Smt. Jaitoon v. Salimuddin, wherein Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Srivastava has obser