Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 429 (MP)

Ramesh Lalai v. Sumati Bai

2002-04-17

NARAIN SINGH

body2002
ORDER Narain Singh "Azad", J. 1. In petitioner's Criminal Revision No. 127/2000, the learned Second ASJ, Hoshangabad not only held the respondent entitled to claim maintenance from petitioner, as ordered by JMFC, Itarsi, on 22-8-2000 in respondent's application filed under Section 125, Cr.PC which was registered as Criminal Case No. 20/98, but enhanced the rate of maintenance to Rs. 700/- per month and that too, from the date of application, against this order of JMFC, Itarsi that the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month, has to be paid since the date of order. 2. It is not in dispute that on the maintenance application filed on behalf of the respondent, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 20/98, the learned JMFC, Itarsi granted her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month by order dated 22-8-2000, after recording and evaluating the evidence of both the parties, adduced by them in support of their claims. 3. A perusal of record of Criminal Case No. 20/98 disposed of by JMFC, Itarsi reveals that on the basis of rival case of both the parties, he framed the following six points for consideration and then recorded his findings on these points, on making objective assessment of evidence of both the parties :- 1 D;k vkosfndk] vukosnd dh fookfgrk iRuh gS\ 2 D;k vukosnd us vkosfndk dk Hkj.k&iks"k.k djus esa mldh vis{kk dh gS\ 3 D;k vkosfndk viuk Hkj.k&iks"k.k djus esa vleFkZ O;fDr gS\ 4 D;k vukosnd] vkosfndk dk Hkj.k&iks"k.k djus esa l{ke gS\ 5 D;k vkosfndk] izeksn nkl 'kkgiqj dh fookfgrk iRuh gS\ 6 D;k vkosfndk] vukosnd ls Hkj.k&iks"k.k ikus dh vf/kdkjh gS\ 4. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Courts below are not justified in holding respondent, the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. It is also contended on behalf of this petitioner that in revision filed by this petitioner, the learned Second ASJ could not have enhanced the rate of maintenance and hence, the order of Revisional Court is liable to be set aside. It is lastly submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no justification to grant the maintenance from the date of application as ordered by Revisional Court, which alone makes the impugned order liable to be set aside. 5. It is lastly submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no justification to grant the maintenance from the date of application as ordered by Revisional Court, which alone makes the impugned order liable to be set aside. 5. A perusal of record of Criminal Case No. 20/98 reveals that the finding recorded on the point of respondent being the legally wedded wife of petitioner, is not perverse as the same is based on proper and objective appreciation of evidence of both the parties. The learned Second ASJ, Hoshangabad has also confirmed the aforesaid finding on careful consideration of evidence of both the parties. Since, re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in exercise of inherent powers, and this finding of the Court below is not noted to be perverse that respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, the first objection raised on behalf of the petitioner fell to the ground. 6. So far as the petitioner's objection on the point of enhancement of rate of maintenance is concerned, it is commented by P.C. Sarkar in his 7th Edition on Cr.PC at page 1171, under Section 397, referring Sahab V. State of Haryana 1990 Cr.LJ 120 para 5 (SC), that in an appeal filed by accused against his conviction, Appellate Court can enhance the sentence (Section 397 read with Section 401) after hearing the accused. Then, it is provided under sub-section (1) of Section 401 of the Cr.PC that while considering a revision, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of appeal under Sections 386, 389, 390, 391 or on a Court of Sessions, by Section 307. Further Section 399 of the Code provides that while deciding a revision, Sessions Judge, may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by High Court under sub-section (1) of Section 401 of the Code. 7. Thus, the learned Second ASJ, Hoshangabad is not found to have committed any illegality in enhancing the rate of maintenance in petitioner's Criminal Revision No. 127/2000, as the same is found enhanced on consideration of just and proper reasons. 8. 7. Thus, the learned Second ASJ, Hoshangabad is not found to have committed any illegality in enhancing the rate of maintenance in petitioner's Criminal Revision No. 127/2000, as the same is found enhanced on consideration of just and proper reasons. 8. Lastly, the Court of JMFC, so also the Revisional Court is competent to order the maintenance from the date of application on recording the reasons for the same and the learned Revisional Court is found to have recorded cogent reasons in para 8 of its order for making the maintenance payable since the date of application. Therefore, the last submission made on behalf of the petitioner also, has no substance. 9. Thus, in the absence of any miscarriage of justice or patent illegality, this petition is noted to be devoid of any merit, which is, accordingly, disallowed and rejected.