J. N. BHATT, J. : -, J.

( 1 ) BY this revision application under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (code for short, hereinafter), the petitioner has questioned the quantum of maintenance awarded to her in a Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 149 of 1982, on 29-11-1982, by the learned judicial magistrate, First Class, at Bhavnagar.

( 2 ) THE present petitioner is, thus, the original applicant-husband and the parties are hereinafter addressed to as applicant-wife and opponent- husband for the sake of convenience and brevity.

( 3 ) THE original applicant-wife claimed Rs. 500/- per month towards maintenance from the original opponent-husband, under Section 125 of the Code, on the ground of desertion and cruelty. She, inter alia, contended that she was driven out of the matrimonial home, mercilessly, as her husband had entered into illicit relation with one lady-Mansa. Three sons were bom out of the wedlock between the parties, which took place in the year 1957, as per Hindu rites. Eldest son-Pankaj, was major when the petition for maintenance came to be filed. Other two sons were minors at that time and they were aged about 12 and 9 years. There is no dispute about the fact that all the three sons are with the original opponent-husband. Equally true is the fact that the original applicant-wife is staying with her mother. The wife further contended that her husband is earning about Rs. 2500/- per month by running a lathe factory. Thus, she pleaded that she is unable to maintain herself and she was neglected by her husband, who is a moneyed man. Therefore she claimed Rs. 500/- by way of maintenance for herself from the husband. The original opponent-husband appeared and resisted the claim for maintenance.

( 4 ) THE applicant-wife relied on the evidence of six witnesses over and above her evidence. The opponent-husband relied on his evidence only.

( 5 ) AFTER appreciating the evidence, the learned judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Bhavnagar, came to the conclusion that the wife is entitled to maintenance and he was pleased to award Rs. 85/- per month by way of her maintenance from the opponent-husband.

( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance awarded, the original applicant-wife has, now, come up before this Court, challenging its legality and validity.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel Mr. S. N. Gandhi for the petitioner/original applicant-wife, vehemently contended that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial Court is, grossly, inadequate. This contention is countered by the learned counsel Mr. D. S. Desai for the respondent No. I/original opponent-husband.

( 8 ) IN short, the controversy is circumscribed to a very narrow compass. In this petition the dispute revolves round as to whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial Court is adequate and proper or not.

( 9 ) THE trial Court has held that the wife would be entitled to Rs. 175/- per month for her maintenance. However, the trial court observed that the wife was engaged in flower selling work and, therefore, she must be earning Rs. 90/- per month. Hence, an amount of Rs. 90/- is deducted from the amount of Rs. 175/- which is the amount held to be entitled to by the wife by way of maintenance. Hence, the trial court awarded a sum of Rs. 85/- per month towards her maintenance from the date of the application.

( 10 ) INCIDENTALLY, it may be mentioned that mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the opponenthusband, is right in contending that the revisional court should not interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court on the quantum of maintenance unless and until it is, grossly, inadequate or there is perversity therein. The jurisdictional sweep of rcvisional court in a case of one on hand is very much circumscribed. Therefore, the rcvisional court will be loath to interfere with the finding of the trial court unless and until the perversity is pointed out or misreading of evidence is, successfully, spelt out. The proposition of law

Click Here to Read the rest of this document