1984 Supreme(MP) 798

S. S. Sharma, J.
Doman Singh v. Godawari Bai,
Cr. R. No. 107 of 1983 (J); Decided on 30-11-1984.

Headnote:Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 125 (4) -- separate Li"Ving by mutual consent not proved -- provision not attracted.

        Non-applicant No. 1 Gadawari Bai was married to applicant Doman Singh in or about the year 1978. Non-applicant No. 2 Ved Prakash, a minor was born of their wed-lock. The non-applicants submitted an application under section 125 Cr. P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) claiming maintenance. The trial Magistrate allowed this application and awarded Rs. 75/- per month for the wife and Rs. 40/- per month for the minor son by way of maintenance from the date of filing of the application. Aggrieved by that order, the applicant filed a revision in the Court of Sessions at Durg. The Addl. Sessions Judge by the impugned order reduced the amount of maintenance to Rs. 70/- per month for the wife and Rs. 30/- per month for the minor son which was payable till he attained majority. But for this modification the revision was dismissed. Aggrieved by this, the present revision has been filed.

        Held : The finding arrived at by the Court below finds support even from the document which has been filed on behalf of the applicant-husband. It has been styled as Talaqnama. Ramdhar, who was examined as a witness on behalf of the non-applicant-husband, in cross-examination stated that the non-applicant husbands father did not want to keep the applicant and for that reason he had signed on that document. This evidence also lends support to the said findings. This apart, the applicant having lost in the revision in the Court below could not have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present revision.

        Learned counsel for the applicant, however, contended not the parties were Li"Ving separately by mutual consent and so by virtue of section 125 (4) of the Code, the non-applicant-wife was not entitled to receive any allowance order that section. This contention, in my opinion cannot be accepted. Learned counsel had placed reliance to support the said plea on the document which has been styled as Talaqnama. Godawari Bai was no doubt questioned about she having signed some document but the document does not appear to have been put or read over to her. Nothing has even otherwise been brought in evidence to show that the parties had been Li"Ving separately by mutual consent. It was not disputed that even a divorced wife, who has not remarried would be entitled to maintenance. Revision dismissed.