DASH RATH Vs. SOU. KUSUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant-husband has filed this revision challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha granting maintenance to the respondent-wife. In short, the dispute arose between husband Dashrath and wife-Kusum in which the wife claimed maintenance from the husband. It is the admitted fact that both of them were legally married and the wife delivered a female child who died after few days It is the case of the wife that she was being harassed by her husband and her mother-in-law. Therefore, she went to her mother's place. The husband Dashrath filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights and a decree was granted in his favour. It is her case that in order to comply the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, she went with her husband, but instead of taking her to reside in his matrimonial house, she was kept in a congested room outside the house and was given bad treatment. She also alleged that she was beaten by her husband and his brother. She reported the matter to Ajni police at Nagpur. Thereafter, the husband drove her out of the house and took her to Seldoh to her mother's place in a drunken condition During the stay with her brother, the wife and her brother sent letters to the husband requesting him to take her away, but the husband did not comply. Thus she was forced to apply for grant of maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code Criminal Procedure In her application she ccntended that the husband is getting Rs. 900.00 per month as salary from the M.S.E.B. at Koradi where he is working as a Driver. She further contended that her husband possesses about 40 acres of land and is getting Rs. 40,000.00 as income per year from the land. She therefore claimed maintenance Rs. 300.00 per month from the husband. Before filing of the application, the wife had sent a notice to the husband The husband in his say at Exhibit 7 did not dispute about the marriage but only stated that he is getting Rs. 550.00 p.m. as the salary. He denied that any ill-treatment was given to her. In the trial Court, the applicant examined herself, her brother Gopal and one Srinivasan. The husband examined himself and two more witnesses. The husband had objection regarding the jurisdiction of the court. According to him, the wife resided with her brother at village Seldoh and therefore Wardha Court had no jurisdiction to decide the case. The trial Court gave the finding that Wardha Court had the jurisdiction to decide the application. However, her application was rejected on the ground that she has not proved the necessary neglect on the part of her husband and that she has not proved that she was unable to maintain herself. Thus the application filed by the wife was rejected by the trial Court.

(2.) The wife therefore filed criminal revision in the Court of the Sessions Judge at Wardha and the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha by the impugned order, held that there was neglect on the part of the husband to maintain her and that she satisfied requirements for the grant of maintenance and ordered the payment of monthly allowance of Rs. 300.00 to Kusum the wife from the date of application. The applicant was also awarded costs in both the courts. Husband Dashrath has impugned the revisional order in the present revision.

(3.) It has been contended by Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Counsel for the applicant-husband that the learned appellate Court has not properly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it inasmuch as the learned Sessions Judge has reapprecaated the evidence on record and reversed the finding of fact reached by the trial Court. According to him, the learned Sessions Judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction which resulted into miscarriage of justice. In order to substantiate his arguments, Shri Dharmadhikari contended that the letters on which reliance has been placed by the learned Sessions Judge, were the get-up documents and were not genuine. According to him, false evidence was created by way of the letters to support her claim by the wife. The reliance placed by the learned Sessions Judge, according to Shri Dharmadhikari, is without jurisdiction. His second submission is that the learned Sessions Judge should not have given the effect of granting of maintenance from the date of application. In short, according to him, it amounts to giving a retrospective effect in granting the maintenance.