- (1.)The concurrent findings recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, [F.C.], Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar dated 13th October, 1998 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 88 Of 1994 together with the Judgment and order passed by the learned Joint District Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar dated 12th July, 2000 in Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 229 Of 1998 are questioned before this Court by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The facts leading to the present Writ Petition can be stated as under:-
[i] Petitioner No. 1 - Sumanbai is the wife of Respondent - Ramesh. Petitioner No. 2 - Priyanka is their daughter. In the year 1994, the petitioners approached to the court of the Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar by moving an application U/Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [In short, the Code.] By the said Application, it was alleged on behalf of the petitioners that marriage of Petitioner No. 1 - Sumanbai with Respondent - Ramesh took place on 27th April, 1982. The financial condition of her parents at the time of her marriage was not sound, requiring her close relative namely - Dnyandeo Lande to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and gold ornament to Respondent - Ramesh. After the marriage, couple cohabited. The Application further disclosed that for the initial period of 7 to 8 years, she was given good treatment and thereafter the position was changed and she was subjected to cruelty at the hands of" her husband. According to the Petitioner, the ill treatment was unbearable, requiring her to leave her matrimonial house alongwith minor daughter - Priyanka [Petitioner No. 2]. The petitioners therefore, prayed that, maintenance @ Rs. 500/- to each of them be awarded, since it is the duty of the respondent to maintain them. Said Cri. Application was registered as Cri. M.A. No. 88/1994.

[ii] On being summoned, the respondent put his appearance before the learned Magistrate and filed his detailed W.S. The W.S. is placed on record at Exhibit - A of the present Petition, though Cri. Misc. Application for maintenance was not filed before this court. Said Criminal Application was denied by the husband. Each and every allegations made against him in the Application filed on behalf of the present petitioners were denied. It was pointed out by the respondent/husband that petitioner No. 1 - Sumanbai left matrimonial house, on her own accord. Though there are allegations made in the W.S. that petitioner No. 1 was leading adulterous life, said fact was not considered by both the courts below. It was pointed out that wife on her own accord left the company of the husband and started residing/living separately.

[iii] The parties entered into the witness-box and placed reliance on various documents. The learned Magistrate after appreciating the pleadings, evidence and documents placed on record, vide Judgment and Order dated 13th October, 1998 was pleased to partly allowed Cri. M.A. No. 229/1998. The learned Magistrate was pleased to award the monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs. 300/- to petitioner No. 2 -Priyanka, a minor daughter, from the date of application, till she attains the age of majority. However, the learned Magistrate was pleased to reject the application for grant of maintenance, filed on behalf of petitioner No. 1 - Sumanbai/wife.

[iv] Feeling aggrieved, both the petitioners have filed Cri. Revn. Application before the Revisional Court at Ahmednagar. Before the Revisional Court, it was submitted that, monthly maintenance allowance awarded in favour of Petitioner No. 2/minor girl is too meager, therefore, it should be enhanced from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 500/- per month. It was tried to canvass before the learned Revisional Court that the order passed by the Magistrate refusing to award the maintenance to the wife, is erroneous.

[v] The learned Revisional Court after hearing the parties to the Revision Application, decided Cri. Revn. Appln. by its Judgment and order dated 12th July, 2000 by which, the learned Revisional Court concur with the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate that petitioner No. 1 - Sumanbai on her own, left the company of Respondent/husband, therefore, she is disentitled to claim maintenance from her husband. In so far as prayer to enhance the maintenance allowance of petitioner No. 2 from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 500/-, the learned Revisional Court found that, the respondent has to take care of other daughters and son, who are residing with him, therefore, the Revisional Court rejected the said claim of petitioner No. 2 also. This concurrent findings of fact are questioned in the present Writ Petition.

(2.)I have heard Mr. B.S. Shinde, h/for Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. P.S. Shinde h/for Mr. S.G. Shinde, Advocate for the Respondent.
(3.)Both the learned counsel with vehemence submitted their respective cases, before this court. Both of them took me in detail of both the judgments, which are impugned before this court. With their able assistance, I have gone through both the Judgments in detail. Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under:-
No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. Bare reading of said Section clearly shows that, wife is dis-entitled for claiming maintenance allowance from her husband, if

[i] she is living in adultery,

[ii] without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband,

[iii] they are living separately by mutual consent.