1 The parties are husband and wife. The wife applied for maintenance under section 488 Cr. P. C. The trial magistrate found that the husband was Keeping a mistress, but he still refused to grand the maintenance on the ground that the wife was leading an adulterous life. In revision, the learned Sessions Judge has found that the trial magistrate was not justified in finding that the wife was leading an adulterous life. He has recommended that the order of the magistrate refusing to grant the maintenence be set aside and that the husband be directed to pay his wife a sum of Rs. 100/-per month by way of maintenance allowance.

2 Mr. R. P. Bakshi appearing for the husband has opposed the reference. His argument is twofold. Firstly, that a revisional court is bound by the findings of fact of the trial court and that the learned Sessions Judge was bound by the finding of the trial court to the effect that the wife was leading an adulterous life and that at any rate the finding to the contrary of the learned Sessions Judge is vitiated on the ground that he has not considered the entire evidence. Secondly, that even on the finding that the wife was leading a chaste life, the learned Sessio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document