Mohd. Hamid Hussrain, J. - (1.) SMT . Savitri Devi has preferred this revision. It arises out of proceedings Under Section 488 Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the Applicant Smt. Savitri Devi, is the legally wedded wife of Rama Shankar, opposite party. Both, the Applicant as well as the opposite party Rama Shankar, reside in the city of Varanasi within PS Daseswamedh. The allegations in the application of Smt. Savitri Devi Under Section 488 Code of Criminal Procedure are that she during her stay with her husband was illtreated by him. He had picked up bad habits of drinking and gambling and had taken and sold her ornaments for gambling and during her stay in his house she was also beaten by the husband. Ultimately the husband Rama Shankar after giving her a beating turned her out of the house and she had been living with her mother where a son was also born to her from Rama Shankar, that Rama Shankar failed to give maintenance allowance to her as well as to the infant son. This application was opposed by Rama Shankar on the ground that Smt. Sivitri Devi was never turned out of the house by him and he was willing to keep and maintain her in the house. The contesting parties led evidence in support of their respective assertions. The magistrate dismissed the application of the Applicant for maintenance on the grounds, firstly that the maltreatment alleged by the Applicant against her husband was not such as to entitle her to remain separate. Secondly, that the Applicant was prepared to keep her and the child with him and to maintain them. Thirdly that the application for maintenance had been moved after a long lapse of seven years and ought to have been moved within a reasonable time.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order of the magistrate dt. 20 -1 -1970 the Applicant went up in revision. The ADM (J) Varanasi Sri S.N. Sharma by his order dt. 18 -2 -1971 rejected the revision as having no force. The learned Magistrate passed a very cryptic order in rejecting the revision. The first para of the order briefly refers to the case being one Under Section 488 Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance and the same having been dismissed by the magistrate and against the dismissal of the application, revision has been preferred. The actual discussion of the case of the parties and finding on merit in the revision has been dealt with in a small paragraph which is quoted below: I have heard the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of the case. In my opinion there is nothing illegal or perverse in the impugned order so as to call for an interference in revision. The application in revision has no force and it is, therefore, rejected. This impugned order of the ADM (J) can hardly be called an order indicating thereby the consideration of the revision on merits. In the memo of revision preferred in the court of the ADM (J) ten grounds were taken to assail the order of the magistrate. Not one of those grounds have been considered by the ADM nor is there any indication in the above -quoted order that the magistrate even gave a passing thought to the contentions raised before him by the counsel for the Applicant. Ground No. 5 in the memo of revision was that the magistrate erred in rejecting the application for maintenance on the ground of it having been filed after a lapse of seven years. Ground No. 6 in the memo of revision questioned the legality of the order of the magistrate by omitting to consider grant of maintenance to the minor son.;