1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.198 OF 2009. Rekha W/o Rahul Ingle ... Petitioner. Versus Rahul S/o Himatrao Ingle ... Respondent. ... Mr.N.T.Tribhuwan, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.P. Patil, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 30.07.2009. PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges judgment and order rendered by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, in Revision Petition No.159/2009, whereby the maintenance order rendered in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Jalna, was set aside. 2 2. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the facts and pleadings of the parties. Suffice it to say that the petitioner filed proceedings U/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. vide Misc. Application No.281/2006 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Jalna, alleging that she married the Respondent on 25.5.2004 in accordance with tenets and rites of Boudh religion. She was residing with him at Aurangabad and was properly maintained for some period. He use to ill-treat her during the period of consortium. He use to demand amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) and she was being beaten up by him. He is employed as a Peon. His monthly salary is Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred). He owns a house property and has rented out a part thereof. She is unable to maintain herself. Consequently, she sought separate maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred) p.m. 3. The Respondent denied truth into the material averments made by the petitioner. He asserted that he is required to maintain his old 3 aged mother, young sister and is unable to pay separate maintenance allowance. He submitted that the petitioner earns amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) p.m. by running a tailoring class. 4. On the basis of material placed on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner proved her case. The learned Judicial Magistrate awarded separate maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 1,300/- (Rupees one thousand three hundred) p.m. to the petitioner vide order dated 16.11.2006. The Respondent preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.159/2006 against the said order. It appears that service of notice could not be effected on the petitioner at the address given by her. The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, allowed the application filed by the Respondent for publication of the notice in a newspaper. The petitioner did not appear inspite of such publication of the notice. The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, held that she was residing at Aurangabad alongwith her brothers 4 and, therefore, the Court at Jalna had no jurisdiction to entertain her application U/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, held that there was no sufficient evidence to justify grant of maintenance allowance and also that the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Jalna, has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. For such reason, the Revision Petition was allowed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is important to note that the petitioner gave her evidence before the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Jalna, on oath. At the relevant time no jurisdictional question was raised. It was not suggested to her that she was residing at Aurangabad and had wrongly filed such proceedings in the Court at Jalna. The points for consideration, as raised before the learned Judicial Magistrate did not show that the jurisdictional issue was raised by the Respondent. In absence of any pleadings or framing of such point by the trial Court, the 5 learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, seems to have jumped to the conclusion that there was no jurisdiction available to the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Jalna, only because the petitioner failed to appear inspite of publication of the notice in the newspaper. It is pertinent to note that this kind of inference drawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is his own invention without any reason or rhyme. The impugned judgment is quite lopsided, perfunctory and absolutely perverse. The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge was required to consider the material on record even if the petitioner did not appear before him in response to the notice which was published in newspaper called "Sakal". 7. Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. provides for revisional jurisdiction in order to examine legality and propriety of the order rendered by the learned Magistrate. Lis in such a case is not only between the parties as such. It is the duty of the Court to examine the record and verify whether the impugned order is legal and 6 proper or that it is tainted with perversity or arbitrariness. The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, failed to exercise the revisional jurisdiction in the manner required within the parameters of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. The reasoning ascribed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, does not show as to why he formed opinion that the evidence tendered by the petitioner was insufficient. Abruptly, such conclusion was drawn without foundation. It also appears that the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, failed to consider the ground reality viz; the fact that the petitioner is not a well educated woman and it was unlikely that she could come across newspapers published at Aurangabad. The entire approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is misdirected and erroneous. 8. For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The impugned judgment rendered by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, is quashed. The Revision Application be restored to its original position. The parties 7 are directed to appear before the Revisional Court on 24.8.2009. The learned Sessions Judge, shall decide the Revision Application on merits after hearing both the sides thereafter. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp19809