- (1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard Mr. A. R. B. Khare, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri B. S. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the opposite party.
(2.) FOR appreciating the matter, learned counsel for the revisionist has been heard on the point of admission/final disposal of the revision petition. In the application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. for maintenance the Court below has allowed the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month on the ground of desertion of the wife, opposite party. The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that he became hand icapped during Bhopal Gas tragedy the wife O. P. wilfully deserted the revisionist. Therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. Further his submission is that the interim order of this Court has been complied with and he has deposited Rs. 2,000/- maintenance allowance. Therefore, he is entitled to extend the in terim stay order dated 3-11 -1992. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Family Judge, Jhansi dated 31-1-1992 has been carefully perused. At page 9 of the Family Court's judgment while discussing the evidence of the revisionist Dhaniram Kushwaha, the Court has noted that the revisionist has made statement that he is an employee in Bhopal Railway Parcel Office and gets Rs. 834/- per month as salary. Further his sub mission is that his wife, opposite party has got illicit relationship with Kishan Singh, a neighbourer of the revisionist. The state ment of the revisionist is that if the op posite party, wife maintain her good be haviour then he is ready to keep her with him.
(3.) THE statement of the revisionist demolishes the entire argument of Mr. Khare. He took plea in this Court that due to physical handicap of the husband-revisionist the wife/opposite party has deserted the revisionist and she is not en titled to maintenance. On the other hand the stand of the revisionist on oath in his deposition as O. P. W. is that he still con tinues in service and gets Rs. 834/- per month, he is ready to keep his wife subject to good character and behaviour of the wife opposite party. On the perusal of the entire judg ment of the learned Family Judge it shows that there is no satisfactory evidence to prove the allegation of adultery against the opposite party-wife. Thus the plea of the wilful desertion or adultery does not stand to the reason.;