The court affirmed that a wife's right to alimony must be ensured considering her wellbeing, regardless of the husband's position.

1.The petitioner is hereby assailing correctness, propriety, and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Court No. 9, Pune in the matter of Criminal Misc. Application No. 18/1994, which was set aside by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.

2. The facts giving rise to the Misc. Petition can be stated as mentioned hereunder in brief :

The present petitioner married with respondent Shivaji Rakhpasare on 29-11-1992 at Pashan, Pune and started cohabiting with him thereafter. She was thereafter left in her parents' house by the mother of Shivaji Rakhpasare, her husband. There were attempts to see that these spouses should cohabit as husband and wife amicably but it failed. The petitioner was pregnant, but there was miscarriage and the medical practitioner who examined her opined that the said miscarriage was caused on account of lifting of heavy articles. That was correlated by the petitioner with the work of fetching water from water canal, which was at a distance of 100 meters from the house of Shivaji Rakhpasare. The petitioner also alleged that during her stay at her husband's house, she was ill - treated by her husband Shivaji and his parents on account of non - payment of dowry articles and a quarrel took place as alleged by the petitioner between the parents of Shivaji and parents of petitioner Rajana.

3. Both Ranjana and Shivaji examined witnesses in support of their respective cases. The learned Magistrate found that Ranjana, present petitioner proved that she was treated with cruelty and was neglected by Shivaji Rakhpasare. He also held that she did not have means to maintain herself and Shivaji, an able bodied person, failed to maintain her. Therefore he directed that Shivaji should pay alimony to Ranjana at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month from the date of petition i.e. 8-3-1994.

4. The said order was challenged in the Sessions Court by Shivaji. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who decided the said Revision Petition, came to the conclusion that the present petitioner Ranjana was a liar, because she alleged that Shivaji and his parents were demanding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing T. V., gold and other costly articles. He pointed out that the said demand could not have been made by Shivaji and his parents because both the spouses belong to Garudi community and father of the present petitioner could not have placed him in such financial stability, which would allow the parents of Shivaji to make demand of Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing T. V. etc. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also opined that at the time of giving evidence only Ranjana expressed an apprehension that it was not safe for her to stay at the house of her husband, Shivaji Rakhpasare. The Additional Sessions Judge also opined that without sufficient cause the present petitioner Ranjana resided separately from her husband Shivaji and, therefore, she was not entitled to get alimony from him.

5. Shri Kate, counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not consider the evidence properly and the reasons given by the Trial Court in saddling respondent No. 1 with liability of paying alimony to present petitioner at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month are not proper. He submitted that thus the Additional Sessions Judge dislodged the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court.

6. He further submitted that when the said revision petition was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, he decided it in the absence of respondent No. 1 Shivaji and his advocate and, therefore, that has also caused a serious illegality. He submitted