1 Smt.Teeja @ Kundi vs. Mangalia @ Magan S.B.Cri. Revision Petition No.22/2007 Date of Order : 15.12.2008 HON'BLE MR. MANAK MOHTA, J. Mr.Bharat Shrimali for Mr.Shambhoo Singh for the petitioner. Mr.Jawan Singh for the complainant. Mr.L.R.Upadhyaya , Public Prosecutor. The instant revision petition has been filed by the wife of respondent No.1 against the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Abu Road dated 17.10.06 passed in Cri. Revision No.01/2005 by which the learned Judge has modified the order dated 05.01.05 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in case No.297/96 by which he granted Rs.350/- per month to petitioner. The brief facts of the case for the disposal of this revision petition are as under:- It is revealed from the record that in an application filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. by the present revision petitioner, on her behalf as well as on behalf of her daughter, 2 maintenance was sought from the husband - respondent alleging that her husband has turned her out and she has no means to maintain herself and her daughter. The learned trial court , after hearing the parties vide order dated 05.01.05 awarded Rs.350/- per month to her and Rs.300/- to Kum.Pooja, daughter of the petitioner. The respondent -husband challenged the said order by filing revision before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge , Abu Road, Sirohi and ultimately the revision petition No.01/2005 was decided vide judgment dated 17.10.06 modifying the order, as stated aforesaid that qua the daughter the order of maintenance was maintained but the maintenance awarded in favour of petitioner was disallowed. Against that the present revision petition has been filed. Notice of revision petition was given to respondent, record was called and arguments were heard. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has passed erroneous order while disallowing the maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Magistrate. It was stated that her husband always used to press her to bring money 3 from her parents and she was turned out by her husband and during the enquiry she has specifically stated the facts narrating the whole true version but the learned Sessions Judge has not properly considered the statement and a wrong inference has been drawn that she does not want to live with her husband. It was contended that under the power of revisional court, the Sessions Judge was not justified to appreciate the evidence and there was no illegality in the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate. Thus, the modification made by the learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable and that should be quashed and order of learned Magistrate may be restored and revision may be allowed. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent refuted the contentions and supported the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge and further submitted that he specifically stated before the learned lower court that he is ready to maintain his wife but she herself has left the house at her own accord. Therefore, she was not entitled to get any sort of maintenance. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly modified the order. A prayer was made to dismiss the revision 4 petition. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The learned Sessions Judge, while appreciating the statement of petitioner, has not thoroughly considered her complete statement and an inference that she is not willing to live with her husband, has wrongly been inferred. I have perused the statement in which she has stated that her husband used to beat her and he turned her out from the house. She has further stated that there is no means to maintain herself. Considering these submissions, the modifications made by the learned Sessions Judge in rejecting the order of maintenance passed in her favour by learned Magistrate, is not sustainable. The impugned order is liable to be quashed and the order passed by the learned Magistrate, in the fitness of things, is required to be restored. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the Sessions Judge dated 17.10.06 is quashed and the order passed by the learned 5 Magistrate dated 05.01.05 in case No.297/1996 is restored. The petitioner will be entitled to get maintenance at the rate as determined by the learned Magistrate, i.e. Rs.350/- per month from the date of filing of the application for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. The revision petition stands disposed of. (MANAK MOHTA), J. l.george