S.S.DEWAN, J. - (1.) THIS revision arises out of maintenance proceedings initiated by Smt. Gurmit Kaur under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code). She filed an application for maintenance against her husband Gurbachan Singh and the same was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya, on July 5, 1982. Feeling aggrieved Smt. Gurmit Kaur went up in revision and the same was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, who vide his order dated September 30, 1982, granted her the maintenance allowance @ Rs. 100/- per mensem with effect from 5.9.1981. Feeling dissatisfied Gurbachan Singh has now come up in revision.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision, briefly stated, are as follows. Smt. Gurmit Kaur was married to the petitioner on February 22, 1978, whereafter they lived together for about 2 years at village odhpur. In her application under Section 125 of the Code, claiming maintenance, she alleged that about 1-1/2 years back, she was maltreated by the petitioner and turned out of his house without any cause or excuse and thereafter she started living with her father at village Masit Pal Kot. The petitioner contested the application denying the allegations of neglect, refusal to maintain or cruelty though he admitted the marriage with Smt. Gurmit Kaur. He also offered to maintain her if she was agreeable to go and live with him. At the outset the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge in this case has given a finding that the petitioner had neglected and refused to maintain the respondent and that this finding is based on the statement of the respondent herself and that the trial Court having given a contrary finding on this point, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not competent to alter that finding of fact given by the trial Court in revision. This argument of the petitioner's counsel, however, does not appear to me because the provisions of Section 397 of the Code are quite clear. The revisional Court can go into the question whether the finding given by an inferior Court is correct, legal or otherwise proper. Apart from that, I find that there is not only the statement of the respondent that she was maltreated, beaten and turned out by her husband but she was also supported on that point by two other witnesses, namely, Maha Singh and Gurdit Singh. The learned trial Court gave the finding on this point only taking into consideration some circumstances. It, however, did not discuss the evidence in detail. Apart from the evidence of these witnesses, another circumstances which clearly goes in favour of the respondent is that although she lived with the petitioner for about 2 years after the marriage, but some untoward incident must have happened which made the respondent leave her husband's house. There is preponderance of evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent that she had been living with her parents for the last about 30 months and no effort was made by her husband to bring her back to the matrimonial home. During this long period of 30 months, the husband had not forgotten his wife, he would have sent some money to her so that she could maintain herself. Therefore, I am of the view that there is sufficient material on the record on the basis of which we can safely come to the conclusion that the petitioner did refuse to maintain the respondent and neglected her. No other point was urged.
(3.) 4. For these reasons I see no ground for interfering with the order passed by the Court below and consequently this petition fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs.;