Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Sau. Usha Uddhav Chanphane, filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) challenging the judgment and order dated 30.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Criminal Revision Application No.114/2010. The revisional court had quashed and set aside the order dated 15.07.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagbhid in Misc. Criminal Application No.38/2008, which had granted maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month to the applicant (wife) under Section 125 CrPC. The applicant and the non-applicant (husband) were married on 14.04.2005. After marriage, the applicant resided at her matrimonial house in Ratnapur with her husband and mother-in-law. The applicant contended that immediately after marriage, the non-applicant expressed that he did not like her but was forced to marry her. Subsequently, the non-applicant and his mother started raising frequent quarrels on trivial issues. During her pregnancy, she was compelled to do heavy work and was not taken to the hospital when she had pains; instead, the non-applicant forced her to consume pills causing a reaction. With the intervention of villagers, she was taken to her parental home where she delivered a child. She filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, which was allowed by the Magistrate. The non-applicant challenged this order in revision, and the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the maintenance order. The High Court examined the revisional court's order and found that the Additional Sessions Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction by reappreciating the evidence and substituting his own view without finding any perversity in the Magistrate's findings. The High Court held that the revisional court's interference was not warranted and restored the Magistrate's order granting maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month to the wife. The court allowed the application, set aside the revisional order, and directed the non-applicant to pay the maintenance as ordered by the Magistrate.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Revisional Jurisdiction - The revisional court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Magistrate unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence - The Additional Sessions Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and substituting his own view - Held that the order of the revisional court was unsustainable and the maintenance order of the Magistrate was restored (Paras 2-10). B) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Quantum - Section 125 CrPC - The Magistrate awarded maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month to the wife - The revisional court set aside the entire order - The High Court held that the quantum was reasonable and the wife was entitled to maintenance as she had no independent income - Held that the maintenance order was restored (Paras 2-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge in revision was justified in setting aside the maintenance order granted by the Magistrate under Section 125 CrPC without finding any perversity in the findings of fact.
Final Decision
Application allowed. The judgment and order dated 30.12.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Criminal Revision Application No.114/2010 is quashed and set aside. The order dated 15.07.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagbhid in Misc. Criminal Application No.38/2008 granting maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month to the applicant is restored. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
- Revisional jurisdiction
- Perversity of findings
- Quantum of maintenance
- Wife's right to maintenance
