Than Singh vs State of U.P.and Anr.

C.A. Rahim, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 1351997 passed by the Judge Family Court, Bareilly in Case No. 373 of 1995 granting Rs. 350 per month to the opposite party No. 2 under Section 125, Cr. P.C. with effect from the date of application.

The revisionist has challenged the said order on the ground that essential requirement of neglect and refusal of the husband to maintain the wife, opposite party No. 2 has not been proved. It is stated that opposite party No. 2 has separated herse lf without any just and reasonable cause. In fact, she has been guilty of wilfully desertion. There is no evidence of torture to opposite party No. 2 who is not entitled to the maintenance since she is an ablebodied iady. In this revision this Court is not entitled to reassess the evidence and come to a different conclusion. What is required to be seen is whether the learned trial court has considered all the ingredients required for the purpose of adjudicating the application for maintenance.

With regard to the income of the opposite party No. 2 the learned trial court held that the petitionerwife has stated that she had no income. Moreover, her father was also not alive. The opposite partyhusband did not state anything in his deposition with regard to the income of his wife and accordingly the learned trial court relying on the evidence of the petitioner adjudicated it in her favour.

With regard to the income of the husband petitionerwife has stated that they had dairy apart from agricultural land, which was denied. The opposite partyhusband has stated that he had only 1.75 bighas of land. They are having 18 bighas of land but it stands in the name of his father. It was admitted by the opposite partyhusband that he used to work as sharecoper.

In recent decision reported in 1995 A.C.C. 35, Hardeo Singh v. Slate ofU.P, it is held that if the husband become a Sadhu it does not absolve him from duty to maintain his wife and children. So an ablebodied husband is bound to maintain his wife. As regards the desertion by the revisionist to his wife it was the case of the wife that after they married her husband claimed Rs. 10,000 and one motorcycle and since they were unable to pay her husband had deserted her after causing assault. The said allegation was denied by the other side.His case is that on the occasion of ''Tfcej'' she went to her father''s place and did not return and that he was willing to take her back. The learned trial Judge was of the opinion that since opposite partyhusband did not file any suit for restitution of conjugal rights his claim does not hold good. Moreover, it is stated by him in written statement that his wife wanted to marry for the second time but nothing has been stated in his deposition. Accordingly the trial Judge held that opposite partyhusband on false plea wanted to avoid his wife.

After considering the judgment of the learned trial court I do not consider that the said finding is perverse. He has considered all aspects and materials produced before him and came to the conclusion that the wifepetitioner is entitled to maintain from her husband and accordingly he allowed maintenance.

In revistonal jurisdiction I do not find any reason to reassess in evidence as in the Case ofPuthamma v. Mohammad. 1986 A.C.C. 286 (SC), it is held that the High Court committed error in making reassessment of the evidence in revisional jurisdiction and the High Court was not justified in substituting its own view and that of the learned Magistrate on the question of fact. In the case reported in 1978 Allahabad Criminal Rulings, 378 it is held that the revisional court has no jurisdiction to upset the finding of the trial court with plea that another version of fact is possible.

After considering the material on record I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned trial court which are purely on the question of fact.

Having no merit the revision is dismissed. Revision dism issed.