- (1.) CASE called out in the revised list.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 17.6.2008 passed by learned lower court whereby awarding the maintenance allowance amounting to Rs.1,000.00 per month to the wife from the date of application. A perusal of the order shows that at the time admission of this revision, no proceedings were directed to be stayed. Only it was directed by this Court that the maintenance allowance? from the date of application to the date of order? shall remain stayed but there was no stay regarding the proceedings which was directed to be taken afresh by remanding the matter to learned lower court after hearing the parties. In pursuance of earlier order passed by learned lower revisional court, subsequent order dated 17.6.2008 has been passed by learned lower court . Against which the present revision has been filed. It is contended that the order passed by learned lower court is illegal and he has ignored the facts and law in the case. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that it has been brought in the knowledge of the trial court that a criminal revision no.37 of 2008 is pending before this court but without considering this aspect of the matter, learned lower court has granted maintenance allowance to her. In this respect, I have gone through the findings recorded by learned lower court at page no.3, learned lower court has observed in his order that the applicant-revisionist had filed a case of divorce against wife while she was living in her parents house. She was never taken care of by her husband? nor any means was ever given by her husband. Learned lower court has also held that she was tortured for demand of dowry and learned lower court has come to the conclusion that it clearly reflects that relations between the parties were not cordial and they were very strained and with this strained relation, she cannot be compelled to live with her husband and it was also held by learned lower court that there was sufficient ground to live her separately. A perusal of the order shows that the question of living with her husband has been fully considered and learned lower court has given well reasons findings with regard to justification of the wife for living separately from her husband, as such, the order under challenge is intact in accordance with law nor any perversity or illegality has been committed by learned lower court while passing the aforesaid order.
(3.) IN view of above, the revision appears to have no force and is liable to be dismissed as such. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.;