Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a social and beneficial provision, and the court's revisional jurisdiction is limited in scope.

JUDGMENT

Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner-husband is aggrieved of the order dated 18.01.2018 passed in Original Maintenance Petition No. 12 of 2017 by which he has been directed by the court in a proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. to pay Rs. 2,000/- to his wife and Rs. 1,000/- each to his three minor children, per month, as maintenance.

2. At the outset, it needs to be indicated that the petitioner did not file his reply to the petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. During the trial his wife has examined five witnesses, however, the petitioner has not examined even himself. He has not filed any document to controvert and challenge the stand taken by his wife in her petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. His wife has asserted that at the time of their marriage the petitioner was given cash, gold-chain, household articles etc., however, after the marriage his family members started harassing her for demand of Rs. 5 lacs from her father. From the wedlock three children have been born, however, the petitioner has failed to maintain them. The allegation of demand of dowry and harassment by the petitioner and his family members would constitute a just excuse for his wife not to stay in his company in her matrimonial home. She has pleaded that the petitioner is a contractor in the colliery. He has rental income from four rooms as well as cultivable lands. From the evidence led by his wife, it does not appear that the petitioner during the cross-examination has elicited anything which would establish that the order of maintenance awarded by the court is illegal.

3. In exercise of powers under the revisional jurisdiction, which, of course, is a limited one, detailed examination of the evidence led in the proceeding of Original Maintenance Petition No. 12 of 2017 is not permissible in law. The provision under section 125 Cr.P.C. is social and beneficial provision. In the facts of this case it has rightly been given effect to by the Court.

4. In the result, finding no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 18.01.2018, Cr. Rev. No. 540 of 2018 is dismissed.