Gulzari Lal vs Desso alias Kuldip Kaur

S.S. Dewan, J.—Being aggrieved by the order dated February 8, 1983 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur in Criminal Revision No. 10 Addl of 1980 allowing maintenance at the rate of Rs. 60/ p.m. to the respondent by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur in case No 14/4 of 1979, husband of the respondent has filed this revision.

Shmt. Desso, wife of the petitioner, made a petition u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming maintenance from the petitioner on the ground that he had illtreated her and driven out of his house and refused to maintain her in spite of being possessed of sufficient means to provide the maintenance. The petitioner denied all these allegations and also denied having married with Shmt. Desso in the year 1960. He rather pleaded that he got married with Shmt Karmi in the year 1965 and from this wedlock he had four children.

At the hearing of the petition, Shmt. Desso, besides putting herself into the witnessbox, examined her father Gulzari Ram, Saran Dass; Sarwan Ram, her real brother,a nd also produced a photograph Ex. PW 1/1 and letters Exs. P 5 and P 7 reffered to above. On the basis of the evidence before him the learned Magistrate held that the respondent wife could not prove her marriage with the petitioner and consequently dismissed her application for maintenance. Being aggrieved, the respondent went up in revision which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur.

Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was wrong in interfering with the order made by the Magistrate on reappraisal of the evidence and the order passed by him, therefore, deserved to be set aside, and to buttress this argument, the learned counsel relied on a decision in Shamsher Singh, etc V. State of Punjab 1982 Current Law Journal (C & Cr.) 176. He also submitted that the amount of maintenance as awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was exorbitant. As against this, Mr. M.L. Sarin, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, argued that though ordinarily the revisional court will be slow to interfere with the order made by the Magistrate but if the appreciation of evidence is perfunctory and capricious, it is competent for the Sessions Judge to reappraise the evidence and the appreciation of the evidence by the Magistrate being perfunctory, the Additional Sessions Judge did not call for any interference.

In view of these contentions the question that requires to be considered is whether the Additional Sessions Judge had committed an error by reappraising the evidence and reversing the finding of the trial magistrate.

As rightly pointed out by Mr. Sarin, even a cursory glance is sufficient to show that the learned Magistrate had not appraised the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent properly: therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in reappraisinng the evidence and recording his own finding on the question of marriage between tee parties. I myself have gone into the judgment recorded the Magistrate and I find that he has not properly discussed the whole evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent whereas the learned Additional Sessions Judge has, after reappraising the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the respondent, correctly found that Shmt. Desso was married tot he petitioner by performing Karewa ceremony. Therefore, the Additional Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in allowing the revision petition of the respondent and awarding her maintenance @ Rs. 60/ p.m. It is needless to go into the authority cited by the learned counsel for the petition because the facts therein are clearly distinguishable and the ratio thereof is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner then took up the question of quantum of maintains and submitted that the amount fixed is exorbitant. He has also tried to seek support for the contention that the petitioner had very little income. Now, according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who has dealt with this aspect at considerable length and has taken pains to go through the entire relevant evidence, the conclusion reached that the husband petitioner was an employee at Naya Nangal and he was getting Rs. 250/ p.m. in the year 1972. Keeping this fact in view, he awarded Rs. 60/ p.m. as maintenance to the wife. In this background, I am afraid it is hardly open to the learned counsel for the petitioner to reopen and reagitate this aspect.

For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.