A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, A. C. J.

( 1 ) IN this revision directed against an order of maintenance passed under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1983, that being the Code still operating in Sikkim, Mr. Bishambhar Sharma, the learned Advocate for the revision petitioner, has assailed the order on two grounds only, namely, (1) the respondent No. 1, in whose favour the order has been passed, is not, and has not been proved to be, t4e wife of the revision-petitioner and (2) the amount of the maintenance ordered is excessive.

( 2 ) THE learned Sessions Judge, who tried the case, (and be it noted that because of certain provisions of law operating in Sikkim, the Sessions Judge is, as held by this Court in Chandra Bahadur v. Sundermaya1 competent to try and dispose of proceedings under section 488 of the Code), has on a careful consideration of the evidence adduced before him, both oral and documentary, held that the respondent No. 1 was duly married to the revision-petitioner and the monthly salary of the latter, who is a police constable, having been found to be not less than Rs. 600/-, the Sessions Judge ordered him to pay maintenance to the respondent No 1 at the rate of Rs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document