Avtar Kaur vs Kirpal Singh

Pritpal Singh, J.

This petition has been filed by Avtar Kaur against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, dated March 1, 1986, whereby the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Nawan Shahar, on February 20, 1985, granting maintenance to her against her husband Kirpal Singh, was set aside.

The petitioner had applied under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of maintenance against her husband Kirpal Singh respondent. The trial Magistrate allowed her application and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 200/ per month to her. The respondent''s revision petition against this order was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, holding that the petitioner had failed to prove that the respondent had neglected or refused to maintain her.

The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, is challenged on the ground that the finding of fact arrived at by the trial to the effect that the respondent had neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner, should not have been interfered with in revision. It is true that ordinarily finding of fact is not interfered with in revision but the revisional Court is competent to disagree with such finding if a is contrary to wellestablished principles of law. One such principle is that the Court should arrive at a finding of fact after due consideration of the evidence produced by the parties. In the instant case two witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner and three witnesses on behalf of the respondent. However, no notice was taken of the statements of the witnesses by the trial Magistrate and without discussing the same the trial Magistrate arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was turned out of the house by the respondent and the latter failed to maintain her. In such circumstances it was open to the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, to arrive at a finding of fact considering the evidence of the witnesses. The revisional Court after discussing the evidence came to the conclusion that it was the petitioner herself who had left the respondent''s house within two weeks of the marriage and then failed to return for about three years. The contention of the petitioner that she was treated with cruelty by the respondent in that short period of less than two weeks was rejected on the ground that she did not complain about this to anyone and not even to her brother. From appraisal of evidence, the revisional Court held that the petitioner had failed to prove the allegation of cruelty attributed to the respondent and did not establish that she had any reasonable cause to live separately from her husband. I find no reason to interfere with this finding.

For aforesaid reasoning, I discern no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, and therefore, dismiss this revision petition.