Smt. Manju Singh vs State of U.P.

Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. - List has been revised. None is present for the revisionist. Heard learned AGA and perused the records.

This revision has been filed against the judgment dated 24.9.2002 passed by Session Judge, Ballia, in criminal revision no. 152/2002 (Parmatma Singh v. Smt. Manju Singh), by which order dated 15.3.2002 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, Ballia was dismissed.

Admitted case of the parties is that the revisionist and O.P. no.-2 are legally wedded wife and husband and they are living separately. Wife-revisionist had filed petition under section 125 CrPC for her maintenance, in which the Court below had afforded opportunity of hearing and thereafter allowed the application of revisionist-wife and direction was issued for maintenance of Rs. 500/- which should be paid to revisionist-wife by OP No. 2-husband. Against this order, OP No. 2- husband had filed criminal revision no. 152/2002, which was allowed by Sessions Judge, Ballia. Against this order of sessions court, present revision has been preferred by wife-revisionist.

From perusal of records it is found that learned trial court had granted maintenance to wife (present revisionist) only because she has been living separately and her marriage subsists. But lower revisional court had more meticulously appreciated evidences and found that findings of trial court are perverse because it had not considered the admitted evidences of applicant-wife that she resided with her husband only for one day in his house, then she left him without sufficient reasons and thereafter deserted him in spite of his attempts to live together.

Since the trial court had ignored the pertinent available evidences, therefore the same erroneous and perverse findings of learned Magistrate were rightly interfered by learned Sessions Judge in revision. There appears no illegality, impropriety or infirmity in impugned order of learned Sessions Judge. A wife, who had deserted her husband willingly without sufficient reasons during subsistence of her marriage and is not ready to live with him, is not entitled to maintenance, even if she had no known source of income.

On the basis of above discussion there is no justification, legal or otherwise, to interfere in the impugned order in this case to exercise revisional jurisdiction. Therefore revision is dismissed.