IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.183 OF 2009 Ibrahim Ismaile Panhalkar ...Applicant vs. Sau Sharifa @ Firoza Ibrahim Panhalkar State of Maharashtra ...Respondents Mr.Rahul Kate for the applicant Mr.S.S.Pednekar A.P.P. for State CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED: MAY 8,2009 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT : JUNE 12,2009 JUDGMENT: 1. On 6th April 2009, notice for final disposal of this revision application at the stage of admission was issued. On 6th May 2009, when this revision application was placed before the Court, the Advocate for the applicant pointed out that the first respondent has been duly served with the notice and affidavit of service has been filed. None appeared for the first respondent on 6th May 2009 and 8th May 2009. 2. The first respondent filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) claiming maintenance of Rs.1500/- p.m. The applicant opposed the said application by filing a reply. One of the contentions raised by the applicant was that he had given Talaq to the first respondent. By a Judgment and Order dated 17th April 2008, the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) rejected the application. The learned Magistrate accepted the case made out by the applicant of Talaq. A revision application was filed by the first respondent before the Sessions Court. By impugned Judgment and Order dated 18th March 2009, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the application filed by the first respondent and directed the applicant to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- p.m. from 19th September 2005 onwards. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no reasons have been assigned by the learned Sessions Judge for setting aside the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate on the issue of Talaq. He submitted that even on merits the impugned order is perverse and illegal. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. Perusal of the Judgment of the learned Magistrate shows that he has elaborately dealt with the evidence adduced by the parties on the aspect of Talaq. The finding on this aspect recorded by the learned Magistrate runs into more than 7 pages. The learned Magistrate recorded a finding that the applicant had divorced the first respondent in the year 2002 itself. Therefore, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application under section 125 of the said Code filed by the first respondent. 5. This aspect has been dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph 10 and 11 of her Judgment which read thus: "10. In the present case, I find that the respondent-husband has not proved that valid and legal Talaq was given to the petitioner. He is required to satisfy the precondition of arbitration for reconciliation and the reasons for Talaq, as held in the aforesaid judgment. Hence, I find that the impugned Judgment and order is not sustainable on the point of Talaq, as contended by the respondent-husband. The same view is taken in the judgment of Dagadu Chotu Pathan vs. Rahimbi Dagadu Pathan and others reported in 2002 (3) Mah. Law Journal 602. 11. Thus, I find that the respondent having admitted his marriage to the applicant, has failed to prove that he has divorced her. Hence, I answer point no.1 in the affirmative. 6. I find that apart from what is recorded in paragraph 10 and 11, there is no other discussion in the impugned Judgment about the case of Talaq. The learned Magistrate has discussed the pleadings of the parties, averments made in notices exchanged prior to filing of the application and other material on record. However, I find that the learned Sessions Judge has not even adverted to the pleadings, evidence and other material on record. The learned Sessions Judge has upset the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate on the issue of Talaq without recording any reasons whatsoever. The finding of fact recorded by the learned Magistrate could not have been disturbed in the revisional jurisdiction in such a casual manner. Only on this ground, the impugned Judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside with a direction to the learned Sessions Judge to decide the revision application afresh after considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record. 7. Hence I pass the following order : i) Impugned Judgment and order dated 18th March 2009 is quashed and set aside. Criminal revision application no.65 of 2008 is restored to the file of the learned Sessions Judge. ii) The learned Sessions Judge will hear and decide the revision application afresh in the light of observations made in this Judgment. iii) It will be open for the first respondent to apply for interim maintenance during the pendency of the revision application. iv) Revision application shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31st October 2009. v) If any amount is deposited by the applicant on the basis of the impugned Judgment and order, the same shall not be permitted to be withdrawn by both the parties till the revision application is disposed of. vi) All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. vii) Rule is partly made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE