SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition, which is filed under Art. 227 of the constitution of India, the petitioner No. 1 who is the wife and the petitioner no. 2, who is the son of the deceased, have challenged the impugned order dated 30-1-1992 passed by Miss H. G. Pandya learned Addl. Sessions Judge, rajkot in Criminal Revision Application No. 109 of 1990 whereby she has partly allowed the Revision Application of the petitioners and confirmed her previous order dated 7-6-1991 in the same Revision Application and the order passed by the learned Magistrate awarding maintenance to the applicant No. 2-Son was modified only to the extent of awarding Rs. 150. 00 P. M. from the date of the maintenance application, i. e. , from 17-7-1987 instead of 1- 8-1990 as ordered by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the Revision application of the applicant-Wife on merits holding that she was not entitled for maintenance as she had failed to prove that she was neglected by her husband and she was unable to maintain herself as there were no reasons/ circumstances to change her previous view. ( 2 ) MS. Thakkar learned Advocate for the petitioners, had submitted that once this Court allowed the earlier Special Criminal Application No. 997 of 1991 of the petitioners and set aside the orders passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Miss H. G. Pandya and remanded the revision Application to the learned Judge only for fixing the amount of maintenance, it was not open to the learned Judge to again come to the conclusion that the applicant-Wife had failed to prove her case that she was neglected or deserted by her husband and she was unable to maintain herself and confirm her previous order dated 7-6-1991. She further submitted that once the direction was given to the learned Judge to allow the petitioners to lead additional documentary evidence, the learned Judge was dutybound to take it on record without any further discussion and observations. She ought to have fixed the amount of maintenance and awarded the same to the petitioners from the date of the maintenance application. Inspite of the clear direction of this Court, the learned Judge has not done that. Therefore, impugned order passed by the learned Judge be set aside. She ought to have fixed the amount of maintenance and awarded the same to the petitioners from the date of the maintenance application. Inspite of the clear direction of this Court, the learned Judge has not done that. Therefore, impugned order passed by the learned Judge be set aside. And, this Court must exercise its power under Art. 227 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners and award maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500. 00 P. M. to each petition from the respondent no. 1 from the date of the maintenance application, i. e. , from 17-7-1987. ( 3 ) MR. Lakhani, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1-Husband was not in a position to defend the order passed by the learned Judge in view of the fact that in an earlier petition, the learned Advocate appearing for the husband had conceded before this Court that both the courts below have committed an error in holding that the wife failed to prove that she was deserted by her husband. However, Mr. Lakhani submitted that the matter may be remanded to the learned Judge or to the learned Magistrate for fixing the amount of maintenance to be paid to the petitioners and this Court should not exercise its powers under Art. 227 of the Constitution. The learned A P. P. Mr. S. T. Mehta supported the contentions of Ms. Thakkar and submitted that this petition may be allowed and the petitioners may be awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500. 00 P. M. from the date of the application as prayed for by them instead of remanding the matter to the learned Judge or to the learned Magistrate. ( 4 ) IT may be stated that the maintanarsce application filed by the petitioners was rejected by the learned Magistrate qua petitioner No. 1- wife as she failed to prove that she was deserted and neglected and refused to be maintained by her husband. Rs. 150. 00 P. M. was awarded to the petitioner No. 2-Son from 1-8-1990. Against that order the petitioners preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 109 of 1990, which was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Miss H. G. Pandya qua the petitioner no. 1-Wife and the order passed by the learned Magistrate was confirmed to that extent. But, the order of Rs. 150. Against that order the petitioners preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 109 of 1990, which was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Miss H. G. Pandya qua the petitioner no. 1-Wife and the order passed by the learned Magistrate was confirmed to that extent. But, the order of Rs. 150. 00 P. M. by way of maintenance passed in favour of son was modified and she awarded the said amount from the date of the maintenance application, i. e. from 17-7-1987, instead of 1-8-1990. The aforesaid orders were challenged by the petitioners before this Court in Special Criminal Application No. 997 of 1991 in which ms. Gangawal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1- husband, conceded before this Court that both the Courts below committed an error in holding that the wife was unable to prove that she was deserted by her husband. It was brought to my notice by M/s. Gangawal that on the question of paying maintenance to the petitioners, further evidence was tried to be produced by the petitioners before the learned judge, but it was not allowed by the learned Judge. Therefore, she had submitted that the learned Judge may be directed to take the same evidence on record and then to pass appropriate order regarding amount of maintenance. Accordingly, the learned Judge was directed to take additional documentary evidence on record and decide the amount of maintenance to be paid to the petitioners and that petition was allowed by me on 24-9-1991 and the orders passed by the Courts below were set aside with a direction to the learned Judge to decide the question regarding the amount of maintenance only. ( 5 ) ON remand, before the learned Judge the petitioners submitted an application Exh. 17 on 27-11-1991 for allowing them to lead additional documentary evidence and to examine concerned witnesses. That application was objected by the husband by application Exh. 18 dated 27-11-1991. From the R and P of the case it appears that the learned Judge partly allowed that application Exh. 17 by her order dated 26-12-1991 and permitted to produce those additional documentary evidence but rejected the prayer to examine witnesses. While deciding that application Exh. That application was objected by the husband by application Exh. 18 dated 27-11-1991. From the R and P of the case it appears that the learned Judge partly allowed that application Exh. 17 by her order dated 26-12-1991 and permitted to produce those additional documentary evidence but rejected the prayer to examine witnesses. While deciding that application Exh. 17 she has stated in her order that, / was painfully surprised after reading the judgment of the Honble high Court with respect to the submission made before the Honble High court by the petitioner-Wife through her Advocate. I have carefully gone through the record and proceedings of this matter and verified and there is nothing to show that the present applicant had ever given and/or prayed for adducing any additional documentary evidence in this matter, which was either objected by the other side or I had refused to allow the production thereof on record" (emphasis supplied ). I fail to understand what was there to be surprised and that too painfully surprised by the learned Judge as stated by her. By making aforesaid observations what the learned Judge meant, I fail to understand. It appears that on a previous occasion also she had acted high-handedly by not taking the application for additional evidence on record. She has totally overlooked the fact that before this Court, the wife had not made that grievance that she was not allowed to lead additional documentary evidence, but it was the learned Advocate Ms. Gangawal appearing for the husband who pointed out to this Court that the learned Judge refused the petitioners to lead additional documentary evidence. It appears that without applying her mind to the contents of the order passed by this Court, she has made above observations. Not only that but in para 4 of her impugned order in Revision she has again made the same observations, which is improper on her part. It does not befit the learned Judge. Aforesaid observations besides being in poor taste are lacking in propriety an also respect due to the highest Court of the State by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. In the case of A. M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1737 in para 14 of the judgment the Supreme Court has observed as under :"the Judges Bench is a seat of power. Sessions Judge. In the case of A. M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1737 in para 14 of the judgment the Supreme Court has observed as under :"the Judges Bench is a seat of power. Not only do judges have power to make binding decisions, their decisions legitimate the use of power by other officials. The Judges have the absolute and unchallengeable control of the Court domain. But they cannot misuse their authority by intemperate comments, undignified banter or scathing criticism of counsel, parties or witnesses. We concede that the Court has the inherent power to act freely upon its own conviction, but it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that derogatory-remarks ought not to be made against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely necessary for the decision of the case to animedvert on their conduct. (See (i) R K. Lakshmanan v. A. K. Srinivasan, 1976 (1) SCR 204 : ( AIR 1975 SC 1741 ). (ii) Niranjan patnaik v. Sashibhushan Kar, 1986 (2) SCR 569 at p. 576 : (AIR 198s SC 819 at p. 824 ). " ( 6 ) IN para 4 of her impugned order, she has reproduced some portion of first para of my judgment in earlier petition, which is as under ;"however, she has brought to my notice that on the question of paying quantum of amount of maintenance to the petitioner and her child, further evidence was sought to be produced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. However, the learned Additional Judge has not given any permission to produce the same. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that the learned additional Judge be directed to take the same evidence on record and then to pass appropriate order regarding quantum of maintenance to the petitioner and her child. "i am at pains to state that the learned Judge has conveniently not reproduced first lines of the first paragraph of that judgment, which I would like to reproduce herein below :"miss. Gangawal, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 fairly conceded before this Court that both the Courts below have committed an error in holding that the wife is unable to prove that she was deserted by her husband. "it was not at all proper on her part to omit above lines. Gangawal, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 fairly conceded before this Court that both the Courts below have committed an error in holding that the wife is unable to prove that she was deserted by her husband. "it was not at all proper on her part to omit above lines. ( 7 ) THE impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions judge, rejecting the Revision Application of the applicant-Wife, is required to be set aside as in earlier Special Criminal Application No. 997 of 1991 this Court had set aside the earlier order passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge holding that the wife had failed to prove that she was neglected and refused to be maintained by her husband. Even otherwise, on merites also the impugned order passed by the learned judge is required to be set aside. The learned Judge in para 10 of her judgment has held that, "i have gone through the documents produced by the petitioner and looking to the documents it is specifically seen from them that these documents Nos. 1 to 3 relate to the properties and the document no. 19/4 in the list is the xerox copy of H. M. P. No. 44 of 1989 filed by the husband. From these documents I do not see any reason to change my view regarding the maintenance because I have already observed in my previous decision that so far as the desertion is concerned, the opponent was not liable for the same and I came to the conclusion that there was no cruelty on the part of the hasband and I observed in my previous decision that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was legal and proper so far as the maintenance to the wife was concerned". In my view, the above conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge cannot be sustained, because she has not considered the fact that the marriage between the parties took place in the year 1980 and in the year 1981 son Dharmesh was born at their place, who was not keeping well and, therefore, he was required medical treatment, but the respondent No. 1-Husband was not willing 10 spend for the treatment of his son. Thereafter, he started to harass and ill-treat his wife physically and mentally and in the year 1982 he had driven out his wife and his son aged only one year with the clothes put on by them. Thereafter, he has never bothered or cared to send any amount for their maintenance for nearly five years. Therefore, petitioners had to file Maintenance Application on 17-7-1987, in my view, there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the wife on the point of neglect. She has stated on oath before the Court, but the learned Judge has discarded her evidence on the ground that no independent witness was examined by her on the point of cruelty and mental torture as deposed by her. It seems that the learned Judge has forgotten the realities of life that normally a Hindu wife would not make complaint about ill-treatment by her husband to others. The learned Judge has also forgotten the fact that in the house of the husband no one else was living. There may not be any independent evidence on the point of cruelty and mental torture. If the wife has stated before the Court on oath that she was physically and mentally tortured by her husband and her evidence in cross is not shaken, then there is no reason for the Court not to believe her evidence. In this case her evidence is also corroborated by the fact that since the year 1982 till the year 1987 the husband has not sent any amount for her maintenance nor he has bothered to maintain them, which will go to show that the husband was not at all willing to keep her. Therefore, in my view both the Courts below have committed an error in not accepting the evidence of the wife. Considering all these facts the learned Advocate Ms. Gangawal, who appeared in earlier petition on behalf of the husband before this Court, had conceded on this point. However, at that stage with a view not to lengthen the judgment, the petition was allowed by recording concession of the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-Husband. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned Judge is required to be set aside. ( 8 ) FROM the Records and Proceedings it appears that during the pendency of the maintenance proceedings, the respondent-Husband has filed divorce petition before the Civil Court. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned Judge is required to be set aside. ( 8 ) FROM the Records and Proceedings it appears that during the pendency of the maintenance proceedings, the respondent-Husband has filed divorce petition before the Civil Court. That very fact goes to show that the husband was not willing to keep his wife. That also proves the case of the wife that she was mentally and physically tortured by her husband. Under Sec. 125 of Cr. P. C. even a divorcee wife is also entitled for maintenance and even if the husband succeeds in getting a decree of divorce from the Civil Court then also he is required to pay to his wife monthly maintenance. ( 9 ) THE learned Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that the provisions of Sec. 125 is a measure of social justice and law must progress. It is needless to say that when the wife comes before the Court with a plea that she is entitled to get maintenance from her husband, before arriving at a finding whether she is entitled for maintenance or not, the court must take genuine interest to find out the truth of the matter. Section 125 of Cr. P. C. , as stated above, is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect woman, who is neglected by her husband, who is bound to maintain her and, therefore, while interpreting the said section out of two alternatives, one which advances the cause of derelicts must be preferred by the Court and not which frustrates its very purpose; the approach of the Courts while considering the plea of one who claims maintenance should be liberal and to that extent the provisions of Sec. 125 of Cr. P. C. must be liberally construed. It is only when the plea raised by one, who is alleged to be liable to pay the amount of maintenance is concerned, the case made out by him disputing the plea of the applicant, who claims maintenance, must be considered by adopting standard of strict proof. The ends of justice must be served and not frustrated by taking technical view. The learned Judge committed an error in holding that no independent witness has been examined by the wife in support of her evidence. Her evidence on oath, not shaken in cross-examination, was sufficient to award the maintenance. The ends of justice must be served and not frustrated by taking technical view. The learned Judge committed an error in holding that no independent witness has been examined by the wife in support of her evidence. Her evidence on oath, not shaken in cross-examination, was sufficient to award the maintenance. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Judge rejecting the Revision Application of wife is required to be set aside. ( 10 ) MR. Lakhani, learned Advocate for the husband had also submitted that his Court should not exercise its power under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioners on merits of the case and also not fix the amount of maintenance. For that the matter may be remanded either to the learned Judge or to the learned Magistrate. It is true that the scope of the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. But at the same time when there are concurrent findings, which are based on misreading of evidence or there is an error apparent on the face of the record and the approach adopted by the lower Courts is perverse, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice, it would be bounden duty of the High Court to exercise its powers under Art. 227 and see that the ends of justice are served and not frustrated. As stated earlier, I have already come to the conclusion that both the Courts below have committed error apparent on the face of the record and the order passed by the learned Judge is even otherwise perverse and also required to be set aside. In my view there cannot be any better case for exercising the power under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Remanding the matter no useful purpose would be served, as I am of the opinion that looking to the evidence on record of the case, both the petitioners are entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500. 00 per month from the respondent No. 1 from the date of the maintenance application, i. e. , from 17-7-1987. Any more delay would defeat justice sought in this type of speedy remedy proceedings. ( 11 ) IN this case there is clear evidence of the wife that the yearly income of her husband is Rs. 1,00,000. 00. 500. 00 per month from the respondent No. 1 from the date of the maintenance application, i. e. , from 17-7-1987. Any more delay would defeat justice sought in this type of speedy remedy proceedings. ( 11 ) IN this case there is clear evidence of the wife that the yearly income of her husband is Rs. 1,00,000. 00. That means it is more than Rs. 8,000. 00 per month. As a wife she would be the best person to know about the income of her husband. Her evidence on the point of income is not seriously challenged and shaken in the cross-examination by the husband. The additional documentary evidence, which has come on record, shows that the husband is having huge property and also agricultural lands. He has also received big cash amount of Rs. 35,000. 00. The husband is a very able bodied man. He has stated in his evidence that he is an agricultural labourer and he is earning Rs. 10. 00 per day by doing agricultural labour work, which is not at all reliable. Marriage between the parties took place in the year 1980 and in 1981 son-Dharmesh was born and after the birth of Dharmesh the respondent-Husband started to ill-treat his wife and refused to pay for even medicine of his sick son and in the year 1982 he had driven out his wife and her minor son of hardly one year old with the clothes put on by them. The husband did not pay a single pai for their maintenance right from the year 1982 till 17-7-1987. In the Maintenance Application, the petitioners had filed an application for interim maintenance, which was partly allowed. Therefore, Revision Application was preferred before the Sessions court. Thereafter, the husband had contested the main application before the learned Magistrate, then Revision Application filed by the petitioners before the Sessions Court and Special Criminal Application filed before this High Court and again after remand, contested the Revision Application before the Sessions court and now again before this Court by engaging Advocates. He must have spent a good amount towards Advocates fees and expenses. Not only that he has filed divorce petition against his wife before the Civil Court wherein he has paid Rs. 750. 00 for costs. There also he has engaged Advocate. In his affidavit dated 9-1-1992 before the learned Addl. He must have spent a good amount towards Advocates fees and expenses. Not only that he has filed divorce petition against his wife before the Civil Court wherein he has paid Rs. 750. 00 for costs. There also he has engaged Advocate. In his affidavit dated 9-1-1992 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision application No. 109 of 1990 he has admitted that he has received Rs. 35,000/ - from his brother after the death of his father and he has deposited Rs. 750/ - for the cost of the divorce petition, which he has filed before the Civil court. He is an able bodied man and if he can afford to spent towards advocates fees and go on fighting luxurious litigations in the Courts of law, then there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the wife on the point that his yearly income is Rs. 1,00,000. 00. He is staying all alone. There is no other liability on him. If wife and son had remained with him, then at least he would have spent not less than Rs. 500. 00 per month for the maintenance of each applicant. Therefore, considering the evidence on record and overall circumstances of the case, it can be said that the petitioners have successfully proved that they are entitled for maintenance from the respondent No. 1 at the rate of Rs. 500. 00 per month each from the date of the application, i. e. , from 17-7-1987. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY this petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajkot on 30-1-1992 in Criminal Revision Application no. 109 of 1990 partly confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate is hereby set aside. Respondent No. 1-Husband is directed to pay Rs. 500/- per month to each petitioner from the date of the maintenance application i. e. , from 17-7- 1987. Respondent No. 1-Husband shall pay the amount in arrears to the applicants within three months from today and continue to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500. 00 per month to both the applicants. Rule is made absolute accordingly. ( 13 ) BEFORE parting with the judgment, I would like to observe that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Ms. H. G. Pandya has deliberately avoided to follow the decision dated 24-9-1991 of this Court Special Criminal application No. 997 of 1991. 500. 00 per month to both the applicants. Rule is made absolute accordingly. ( 13 ) BEFORE parting with the judgment, I would like to observe that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Ms. H. G. Pandya has deliberately avoided to follow the decision dated 24-9-1991 of this Court Special Criminal application No. 997 of 1991. Her conduct amounts to disobedience and disregard to the Court, by acting in opposition to the authority, justice and dignity and thereby brought the administration of law into disrepute. This Court takes serious view of the matter, but I am not inclined to take any other strict action in the matter with the hope that in future the learned Judge will maintain judicial discipline, as judicial restraint and discipline are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to the effectiveness of the army. The duty of restraint, this humility of function should be a constant them of our Judges. This quality in decision making is as much necessary for Judges to command respect as to protect the independence of the judiciary. Judicial restraint in this regard might better be called judicial respect; that is, respect by the judiciary. When these qualities fail or when litigants and public believe that the Judge has failed in these qualities, it will be neither good for the Judge nor for the judicial process. With these observations, I conclude this judgment. .