- (1.) THIS criminal revision arises out of proceedings for maintenance under Section 488, Criminal p. C. The Courts below have agreed in holding that Smt. Siddiqunnissa and her three minor children, Ilias, Ishaq and Mush-taq were entitled to get maintenance allowance of Rs. 30/- per month from Shamsher Khan, the husband of Smt. Siddiqunnissa and the father of the minors. They overruled the defence which was to the effect that the application was not bona fide; that there was no refusal on the part of the husband to maintain the wife; that he never ill-treated her or her children arid that he is an old man of 65 and has no source of income. The learned mag-'strate accepted the version of the claimants, namely, that Shamsher Khan Used to chastise smt. Siddiqunnissa and refused to maintain her or the children; that he has landed property, a grove and a cycle shop at Purwa and that he receives a certain amount of income from Bombay. He summed up his findings thus : "thus going through the entire evidence produced by the parties I am of opinion that Shamsher khan lived with the wife of his Sarhoo Yaqub Khan and as such refused to maintain the applicants and that he has a cycle shop and some land in Purwa and also earns in Bombay. Taking into consideration the means of Shamsher Khan and the fact that there are 4 persons to be maintained I order Shamsher Khan to pay Rs. 30/- as an allowance to the applicant Sm. Siddiqunnissa for her maintenance and the maintenance of her three minor sons. "
(2.) BEFORE the Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao, who was moved by Shamsher Khan in revision, it was urged that the application was not maintainable inasmuch as a previous application under Section 488, Criminal P. C. on the same cause of action was rejected by the learned Magistrate. It was further contended that in view of the offer made by Shamsher Khan to maintain his wife and children it was incumbent on the learned Magistrate to make an enquiry relating to the genuineness of the offer under the proviso to Section 488 (3), Criminal P. C. and that failure on the part of the Magistrate to address himself to the question vitiated the trial court's proceedings. There was also the complaint that the applicant was Shut out from cross-examining the witnesses produced by his wife. None of these contentions, however, found favour with the learned Judge.
(3.) THE arguments have been repeated in this Court on behalf of the husband but I find myself unable to give effect to them in view of the findings reached by the Courts below.;