Concurrent findings of fact if and when can be transferred.

One Abdul Rasheed got married to one Naseema Begum in July 1969, according to Islamic rites and ceremonies. The spouses lived together happily for sometime. During the said period, two off-springs came into existence, one a male child and the other, a female child. The male child did having ephemeral existence in the world and the female child is surviving and she was named Riswana.

.2. During the marital life, the husband appeared to have swerved away from the path of rectitude and developed illicit connection with a Hindu woman by name Saradha. Because of such influence, it was said, the wife was meted out cruelty at the hands of the husband. Consequently, she was stated to have been driven out of the matrimonial abode in the year 1975, along with her female child. She, along with the minor female child, was stated to have taken shelter in her parents’ house and was eking out their livelihood, leaving things to fate, without even claiming maintenance from the husband for his wilful refusal and neglet to maintain her and the child. When she was unable to sustain the onslaught of attack of her inability to maintain herself and her minor daughter, without there being any income or deriving any support from her parents, she decided to file an application under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’) claiming maintenance for herself and her minor daughter. In making the claim for maintenance, she would aver that her husband owns house property and three acres of arable lands, besides getting himself engaged in transacting business in tamarind for quite some years, earning a fabulous income. She, in fact, appeared to have presented such a petition on 14. 1984 before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (as he then was), Tiruppattur, which after having been taken on file, was transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court (as it then was), Tiruppattur from where it appears the case was again trasferred to Judicial Magistrate Ambur, and taken on file as M.C.No.31 of 1989.

3. The husband resisted the maintenance claim of the wife and the- minor daughter pleading that there was neither, wilful refusal nor neglect on his part and what had happened was that his wife deserted matrimonial abode of her own accord and therefore it is that there was no justification for her to live separately and claim maintenance. He would alternatively plead that from the properties he owns, he was unable to derive any income and to say that he was transacting business in tamarind is shorn of the reality of the situation. He would however express his desire to pay maintenance to his minor daughter.

.4. Learned Magistrate, on consideration of the materials placed, awarded maintenance in a sum of Rs.300 per mensum to each of them. The husband filed Crl.R.P.No.122 of 1991 before the Court of Session, North Arcot Division, agitating award of maintenance stating that the award is untenable while the wife, on her behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter, filed Crl.R.C.No. 12 of 1992 praying for the enhanced claim of maintenance.

5. Both the revisions were heard together by learned Sessions Judge. A common order had been passed by him, after perusal of the materials available on record and on hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, dismissing the revision filed by the husband, and partly allowing the revision filed by the wife, in the sense of enhancing her maintenance claim alone from Rs.300 to Rs.500 per mensem while confirming the award of maintenance to the minor daughter as had been done by the trial Courts.

6. The husband filed Crl.R.C.No.248 of 1992 before this Court as against the order of enhancement of maintenance to his wife. He however resorted to knock at the doors of this Court by invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482of the Code by filing Crl.O.P.No.7925 of 1992 as against the dismissal of his revision petition by the Court of Session, North Arcot Division.

7. Both