- (1.) 1. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and orders dated 29-03-1993 and 09-01-1992 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli, Gopeshwar and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli, Gopeshwar respec tively (Annexure I & II ).
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 05-08-1987 the respondent No. 1 Smt. Shakuntala Devi filed an applica tion before the Magistrate under section 125 Cr. P. C. against her husband-Surendra Singh. It was alleged in the ap plication under section 125 Cr. RC. that the marriage was solemnized in between the respondent No. 1 and petitioner in the year 1982. Thereafter, she was discharg ing her matrimonial obligations towards the petitioner and she was residing with him. Later on, when she fell ill and the petitioner asked her parents to take in their house for medical treatment. There after, the petitioner took her back to her parental house. The petitioner did not take her back to her matrimonial house and did not pay any maintenance allow ance. As such, the petitioner had ne glected to maintain his wife. It was fur ther alleged that the petitioner is a gov ernment employee and he earns Rs. 1400-1500/- per month and apart this he also earns a handsome money from the agricultural land. The respondent No. 1 had claimed Rs. 500/- p. m. as mainte nance. The written statement was filed by the petitioner denying all the aver ments made in the application filed un der section 125 Cr. RC. The petitioner had further stated in the written state ment that he is ready to take her back to his house, but his wife is not ready to come to discharge the matrimonial obligations and as such the application for maintenance may be rejected. The parties were directed to ad duce their evidence in support of their evidence. The respondent no. 1 had ex amined himself as PW1 and she sup ported the averments made in the ap plication under section 125 Cr. RC. She had also stated that the petitioner had filed the suit for dissolution of marriage. The petitioner had not adduced any evi dence in rebuttal.
(3.) AFTER appreciation of evidence on record, vide order dated 9-1-1992 the learned Magistrate allowed the applica tion under section 125 Cr. RC. and the petitioner was directed to pay mainte nance to his wife @ Rs. 400/- p. m. from the date of filing of application for main tenance i. e. 5-8-1987. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge and the same was dismissed on 29-03-1993. Feeling ag grieved by this, the writ petition before this Court. At the outset, I would like to mention here that the petitioner could have filed a petition under section 482 Cr. RC. but the petitioner had not taken the recourse to file the petition under section 482 Cr. RC. As such, the present writ petition is not maintain able because the efficacious remedy under section 482 Cr. RC. was avail able to the petitioner. The matter is very old and the parties are prosecut ing this petition since 1993. Both the courts below had given concurrent finding. It would not be just and proper to dismiss this petition only on the ground of maintainability. I do not find any merit in the petition. The con current findings had been given both the courts below. The petitioner had sufficient means to pay maintenance. He had neglected to maintain his wife. I am completely in agreement with the findings recorded by the courts below in this regard.;