JUDGMENT Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of parties. 2. The petitioner is wife (original applicant), who was approved maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month by 10th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur on 1.9.2012 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 21/2012, to be paid by the respondent No. 2 Vishal (hereinafter referred to as the respondent). The respondent filed Criminal Revision No. 75/2012 and the Sessions Judge, Latur, overturned the decision and the application for maintenance by the petitioner came to be rejected. 3. The case of petitioner, in brief, as appearing from the record of trial Court, can be stated to be as under: (a) Petitioner was married to the respondent on 27.4.2009 at Borgaon, Taluka Chakur, District Latur. On and before 28.8.2010, respondent had from time to time severely beaten the petitioner and given her mental and physical torture. On 27.8.2010, she was beaten and taken to Police Station, Chakur and respondent tried to give false complaint against her, but the police, after talking to petitioner, realised that the respondent was trying to give false complaint and they made the parties understand and sent them back home. However, the respondent, his father and relatives, in the night, tried to push the petitioner in a well and tried to kill her, but because of shouting by the petitioner, people gathered and she was saved. She was then kept in a room and next day morning she was again beaten and ornaments from her person were removed and she was reached to the place of her parents at Latur. (b) Parents of petitioner and respectable persons of the society many times tried to convince the respondent and his parents to let petitioner live in the matrimonial home, but the respondent refused. Thus, the application before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. (c) According to the petitioner, the respondent earns Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from business as commission agent in Market Yard at Chakur. Similarly, the respondent has Gat No. 142/3 at Anandwadi, Chakur and there is orchard of grapes. His parents are in Government service and he is the only son. The daughters are also married. There are agricultural properties in the name of his parents also which are irrigated lands. Thus, the application for maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month. 4. In the trial Court, the petitioner examined herself and her brother Vikas Kondiba. His parents are in Government service and he is the only son. The daughters are also married. There are agricultural properties in the name of his parents also which are irrigated lands. Thus, the application for maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month. 4. In the trial Court, the petitioner examined herself and her brother Vikas Kondiba. Respondent examined himself and one Dashrath Ganpatrao Lomte, who is husband of his cousin sister. The petitioner brought on record documentary evidence of 7/12 extracts of agricultural properties. 5. Trial Court examined the evidence and found that petitioner was entitled to the maintenance, but, as mentioned, the Sessions Court reversed the decision. 6. I have heard counsel for both sides. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sessions Court wrongly went into the evidence of another proceedings between the parties at the stage of revision and put the blame on petitioner that the marriage was not consummated, and rejected the application for maintenance. According to the learned counsel, looking to the object of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short), the maintenance could not have been declined when apparently the parties are residing separate and the husband has neglected to maintain his wife. 7. Counsel for respondent submitted that, the observations and findings recorded by the revisional Court are correct and the maintenance has rightly been refused. The counsel referred to the judgment of the Sessions Court to say that, apart from the ground of marriage not getting consummated, there are other reasons also recorded by the Sessions Judge for refusing to grant maintenance. The respondent relied on the affidavit-in-reply which has been filed in this proceedings. 8. In present Writ Petition, my concern is whether the judgment an order passed by the revisional Court can be said to be legally maintainable. At the stage of revision, the respondent filed Exhibit 14 and tendered copies of statement of present petitioner and the complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code as well as the judgment in the said proceedings R.C.C. No. 203/2011, which judgment has been passed on 18.4.2013. The production was allowed on 5.7.2013 and the revisional Court, in its judgment, directly read from the statement of that proceedings. 9. The production was allowed on 5.7.2013 and the revisional Court, in its judgment, directly read from the statement of that proceedings. 9. If the marriage had not been consummated, this was not a ground taken by the respondent when the matter was pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. I will make brief reference to the oral evidence which appears from the record of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, as the Court in revision re-examined the evidence and overturned the judgment. 10. The petitioner supported her application for maintenance by her affidavit of examination-in-chief. In her cross-examination, it has come on record that financially the respondent is much well of, compared to the financial status of the petitioner and her parents. The evidence shows that the expenses of the marriage were borne by the respondent. It is on record that, the couple lived together hardly for 1 year and 4 month; i.e. between 27.4.2009 when the marriage took place, till 28.8.2010. In the cross-examination of the petitioner, she was asked and she stated that, regarding the beating on 27.8.2010 and 28.8.2010, she had gone to the police station and had orally complained, but police did not take down her complaint. In the cross-examination, it was suggested to her that, she did not wish to reside with the respondent as the marriage was against her will. The suggestion was denied. In the cross-examination, she expressed her willingness to go and live with the respondent. In the cross-examination it was suggested to her that she on her own left the matrimonial home on 27.8.2010. The suggestion was denied by her. 11. The evidence of petitioner's brother Vikas regarding ill-treatment to her at the place of respondent is hear-say. However, in the cross-examination, even this witness stated that regarding the beating of petitioner, oral complaint was made to Chakur Police Station. According to this brother of petitioner, regarding incident on 27.8.2010, he along with others had gone to Chakur Police Station to give complaint. He also deposed regarding efforts made at re-conciliation. 12. The respondent in his evidence claimed that the petitioner was got married by her parents against her wish and she did not like the respondent and used to say so, to him and was not ready to cohabit. He claimed that, she used to frequently go away from his place to the place of her parents at Latur. 12. The respondent in his evidence claimed that the petitioner was got married by her parents against her wish and she did not like the respondent and used to say so, to him and was not ready to cohabit. He claimed that, she used to frequently go away from his place to the place of her parents at Latur. Other claims of the petitioner were denied by him in his affidavit of examination-in-chief. In his cross-examination, he was suggested that rather he himself did not like the petitioner and so he was troubling her. The suggestion was denied. He admitted that the petitioner had also filed proceedings under Section 498-A against him. Witness of respondent namely Dashrath Lomte, who claims to be the husband of cousin sister of respondent, in his affidavit claimed that the petitioner used to tell him that she has been got married to respondent against her wish and does not feel like staying at the matrimonial home. This evidence of the witness has been challenged in the cross-examination. 13. Keeping in view such evidence of the parties on record, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, before whom the evidence was led, found the evidence of and for petitioner reliable. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class observed that the petitioner had proceeded under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code also and thus, prima facie material was brought that the respondent had given mental and physical trouble to the petitioner. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class found that the evidence revealed that the respondent had ignored to maintain the petitioner. He did not rely on the witness Dashrath, examined by respondent observing that Dashrath was unable to say as to when petitioner had told him that she was married against her will. Judicial Magistrate, First Class observed that such witness Dashrath was a male and not a close relative of the petitioner for her to tell such person the feelings of the petitioner. Judicial Magistrate, First Class found that it is unlikely that the petitioner, a woman would tell such things to a male from outside. Judicial Magistrate, First Class observed that, it is unlikely that the petitioner, a woman, would for no reason to spoil her matrimonial life when the condition at her parents’ place is not sound and the respondent is well of, which is admitted position. 14. Judicial Magistrate, First Class observed that, it is unlikely that the petitioner, a woman, would for no reason to spoil her matrimonial life when the condition at her parents’ place is not sound and the respondent is well of, which is admitted position. 14. Against findings and reasonings recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, the Sessions Judge observed that the wife has not stated reason as to why she was beaten. I have referred to the evidence where it was suggested to the respondent that he did not like the petitioner and so he was troubling her. The Sessions Judge observed that the wife had maintained silence before the police regarding the incident dated 27.8.2010 and 28.8.2010. However, I have referred to the evidence brought by the petitioner of herself and her brother that the complaint was made to the police. No doubt nothing in writing has been brought, but as the evidence of petitioner herself shows, when respondent had tried to file a false case against her, the police had sent back the couple. When the petitioner claims that she and her brother had orally reported to the police, it is not an evidence which could be said to be impossible. Though not permissible when criminal offence is there, it does happen at times that police try to convince the couple and send them back. It does not mean that evidence of petitioner or her brother that they did go and complain to police orally is unreliable. The Sessions Judge observed that it is highly impossible that the wife and her parents would maintain silence if the petitioner had been beaten or attempted to push petitioner into the well. I find that the marriage was just 1 year 4 months old and admittedly the family of petitioner was not in a sound financial condition like the respondent. In such situation, it is not surprising if the petitioner or her parents are unable to get a police complaint registered and there is nothing surprising if when the marriage was still new they did not seriously pursue the matter with police or Court immediately. There is tendency to try to save the marriage. There is evidence of the petitioner as well as her brother that even after 28.8.2010 efforts were made by the parents of petitioner to see that the matrimonial life becomes smooth, but the same did not succeed. There is tendency to try to save the marriage. There is evidence of the petitioner as well as her brother that even after 28.8.2010 efforts were made by the parents of petitioner to see that the matrimonial life becomes smooth, but the same did not succeed. 15. The Sessions Court, in its judgment referred to the cross-examination of petitioner in the proceeding under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and stated that the petitioner had admitted in cross-examination in R.C.C. No. 203/2011 that the marriage has not been consummated. From this, the Sessions Judge concluded that there is corroboration to the version of respondent that petitioner claims that her marriage was against her will. As the Sessions Judge has referred to the evidence, I have perused the said deposition from the record of the Sessions Court. In para 2 of the evidence, the petitioner accepted that it was correct that since the date of their marriage she had no intercourse with the present respondent. The Sessions Judge referred only to this para of the evidence to over turn the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The Sessions Judge did not refer to para 3 of the evidence in R.C.C. No. 203/2011 where it was specifically suggested to the petitioner that being married without her consent and willingness, she did not allow the respondent for intercourse with her. The suggestion was denied by her. Such later part of the evidence was not looked into by the Sessions Judge. Even otherwise, if the intercourse had not taken place after the marriage, the petitioner was not asked as to what was the reason for the same. It was not her evidence that she refused the respondent in this regard. Without giving such opportunity, directly jumping to the conclusion that the marriage was not consummated due to fault of petitioner would not be proper. This is apart from the fact that the Sessions Judge could not have directly read the evidence in the manner in which it has been done. No such defence was raised by respondent and at stage of revision new material without giving opportunity to petitioner to explain could not have been used. 16. I find that, in the present proceedings, as were before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, there was evidence of petitioner against that of the respondent as to what happened at the matrimonial home. 17. 16. I find that, in the present proceedings, as were before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, there was evidence of petitioner against that of the respondent as to what happened at the matrimonial home. 17. The nature of proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. were discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarka Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit & anr., reported in AIR 1999 SC 3348 . In that matter, regarding performance of marriage, there was question if strict proof is required. In para 10 of the judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "10. After not disputing the paternity of the child and after accepting the fact that marriage ceremony was performed, though not legally perfect as contended, it would hardly lie in the mouth of the appellant to contend in proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C. that there was no valid marriage as essential rites were not performed at the time of said marriage. The provision under Section 125 is not to be utilized for defeating the rights conferred by the Legislature to the destitute women, children or parents who are victims of social environment." Further, in para 13, it was observed as under: "13. Hence, in our view from the evidence which is led if the Magistrate is prima facie satisfied with regard to the performance of marriage in proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. which are of summary nature, strict proof of performance of essential rites is not required. Either of the parties aggrieved by the order of maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. can approach the Civil Court for declaration of status as the order passed under Section 125 does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties." 18. It can be appreciated, the object of proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is to give support to the wife in distress due to matrimonial dispute. Whether criminal offence was there would be a matter to be pursued separately. Whether it was offence under Section 498-A or whether there were grounds for proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act, are proceedings which are required to be pursued independently. Whether criminal offence was there would be a matter to be pursued separately. Whether it was offence under Section 498-A or whether there were grounds for proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act, are proceedings which are required to be pursued independently. In the present set of facts, keeping object of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in view, prima facie when the record shows that the husband and wife are residing separate due to matrimonial problems, and the husband has neglected to maintain the wife when she is at the place of her parents, I find that there was no justification for the revisional Court to interfere and take away the maintenance awarded to the wife, who is living with her parents, who are admittedly not well of. Sessions Judge did not come to, conclusion that the findings arrived at by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class were perverse and illegal so as to call for interference. 19. I agree with the Judicial Magistrate, First Class that the petitioner is unable to maintain herself and that the respondent has neglected to maintain her. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class discussed the evidence of certificate from Market Committee filed with Exhibit 21 that the respondent had licence of the Market Committee. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class also discussed that the respondent was trading in the name of "Bhagyashree Trading Company". The 7/12 extract showing 1 Hector 20 R land in the name of respondent and the crops which were being taken by him were also discussed. Considering the income of the respondent and that it was not proved that the petitioner could take care of herself, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class granted Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance. The Sessions Judge did not go into the findings regarding inability of petitioner to maintain herself and the capacity of the husband and those findings were not disturbed. I find that, the findings of Judicial Magistrate, First Class on these counts are also maintainable. 20. In Writ Petition, normally I would not have gone into the evidence and findings of fact. However, as the revisional Court has gone into the same and upset the findings of fact recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Looking to the evidence, I find that the findings and reasons recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class to award the maintenance were correct, legal and proper. However, as the revisional Court has gone into the same and upset the findings of fact recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Looking to the evidence, I find that the findings and reasons recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class to award the maintenance were correct, legal and proper. The judgment of the revisional Court is not maintainable. 21. For the above reasons, the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Latur in Criminal Revision No. 75/2012 is quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed by the 10th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur, dated 1/9/2012 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12/2012 is restored. 22. Rule made absolute. Present Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Petition allowed.