Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Shakuntala, filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment dated 10.08.2018 passed by the I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at Jamakhandi, in Crl.A.No.2/2017, which confirmed the order dated 26.12.2016 passed by the Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Banahatti, in Crl.Misc.No.10/2013. The petitioner sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from her husband, Kashappa @ Kashinath Athani, and other respondents. The trial court granted maintenance, which was upheld by the appellate court. The husband contended that the wife had left him voluntarily and was living in adultery, and that he had married a second wife. The courts below found that the wife had proved neglect and refusal to maintain, and that the husband's allegations were not substantiated. The High Court, in revision, held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and were not perverse or illegal. The court noted that the revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence. The revision petition was dismissed, affirming the maintenance order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC - Neglect or Refusal to Maintain - The wife proved that the husband neglected and refused to maintain her despite having sufficient means. The husband's plea of second marriage and alleged adultery was not substantiated. Held that the concurrent findings of fact are not perverse and do not warrant interference in revision (Paras 1-10). B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC - Scope of Interference - The revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or illegal. The concurrent findings of the courts below were based on evidence and did not suffer from any illegality. Held that the revision petition is devoid of merits (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below erred in granting maintenance to the petitioner-wife under Section 125 CrPC despite the husband's allegations of adultery and second marriage?
Final Decision
The revision petition is dismissed. The judgment/order dated 10.08.2018 passed by the I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at Jamakhandi, in Crl.A.No.2/2017 confirming the order dated 26.12.2016 passed by the Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Banahatti, in Crl.Misc.No.10/2013 is upheld.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
- Neglect or refusal to maintain
- Burden of proof on wife
- Second marriage not a bar to maintenance
- Quantum of maintenance
- Revision jurisdiction limited to illegality or perversity
