S.P. Kulkarni, J.
1. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant/ original opponent Ramdas against whom an order for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been passed. That order was passed in favour of his wife Babytai and the daughter named Yogita, each of them were to get Rs. 150/- per month from the applicant.
2. The learned Magistrate before whom the proceeding was started made an enquiry into the application, heard the defence of the applicant and having given an opportunity to both the sides to adduce evidence, recorded the finding that there was a neglect and the applicant Ramdas was liable to pay maintenance as stated above. Although the original claim made by the wife, the son and two daughters was to the extent of Rs. 1,500/-, still the learned Magistrate on due enquiry quantified the amount of Rs. 150/- only in favour of the wife and original applicant No. 4 Yogita, who are the two respondents before this Court.
3. After the Award of maintenance as indicated above, the original opponent Ramdas, the husband of respondent No. 1, moved the Sessions Court in revision. The revision also came to be dismissed on the ground that the questions of facts which were endeavoured to be agitated before that Court were the concluded aspects and there could not be a scrutiny and proof of the kind with which the evidence was sought to be attacked on the ground that the trial Magistrate had ignored certain aspects of evidence, which could have been considered and, therefore, wrongly determined the amount of maintenance.
4. Since the Sessions Court dismissed the revision, applicant Ramdas had moved this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The short question to be considered is as to whether there was a miscarriage of justice as a result of necessary piece of evidence having not been considered by the two Courts below, any wrong conclusion came to be reached by them and when this could be so, such could be a fit case for interference as drawing a proper inference was the basic task of both the Courts below. I have heard both the learned Advocates as to on what account and which of the part of the evidence which should have been considered and if considered, the conclusion which both the Courts below reached could not have been reached and an interference by this Court would be necessary.
5. It was urged that there was a proof with respect of there being two houses and certain income by way of rent from one house alone is considered, whereas the income by way of rent from other house was not considered. This income was said to be available to the wife herself and if she had the said income available, it would affect determination of the quantum of maintenance to her and the daughter. For this purpose, after calling for the record, the learned Advocate took me through some part of the evidence. The short and crucial question was, which was the kind of evidence which, if taken into consideration, the determination of the quantum of maintenance as has been done by the two Courts below would not be justified. There was a clear version from the evidence of the wife that totally she earned an income of Rs. 600 /- per month by way of rent. She having said this, in the cross-examination, there was endeavour to point out that there were two houses; that the tenants from those houses were paying rent, but it must be mentioned that no admission has been elicited that the amount of Rs. 600/- as a rent was from one house only and, therefore, the rent from the other house was also available to her, which could have been clearly suggested. Therefore, the learned Advocate was asked as to whether in spite of the rent from the house or the income from certain field property which is said to be in the possession of the wife, was such which either the wife admitted or the husband had proved and both the Courts below have not considered that aspect. To this query, evidence could not be pointed out to show that in fact there was a proof as to the total amount of income which the wife in the estimation of the husband and in the light of his defence could surely be said to be getting and even then the learned Magistrate or the Revisional Court have ignored that aspect and saddled the liability of Rs. 150 / - per month on the applicant. Existence of prevalence of this situation could not be shown after referring to some of the parts of the evidence and consequently it cannot be said that the two Courts below must have erred in drawing any perverse inference or inferences which cannot be said to be proper or that they really suffer from any infirmity that certain important piece of evidence which existed on the record and still not considered by the two Courts below, which would lead the Court to a conclusion that even determination of Rs. 150/- per month was an erroneous finding. When this could not be shown, it was lastly urged that the applicant who was working in the Police Department was later suspended and he was getting only a suspension allowance of Rs. 1,100/- and now the position is that he has been dismissed and, therefore, he does not get anything by way of salary. However, when the order was passed, these circumstances were not the circumstances which prevailed and the consequent changed circumstances could be a matter for appropriate relief to be pleaded by the husband upon proof of certain aspects if the husband needed any modification into the order from the Trial Court. However, neither there are any clear facts nor any proper data nor the wife and the daughter have been represented by any one, and it is really unsafe to record any observation on this aspect of the matter, which has been thus advanced.
6. In the result, therefore, the application cannot be said to succeed on the ground that certain important piece of evidence was not properly considered or even perversely taken into consideration by any of the two Courts below, on account of which the findings stood vitiated. Since the Court was not satisfied regarding these contentions, the inevitable result is that the present application must fail and it stands dismissed.