Full Judgment
S.B. Sakrikar, J.
1. The applicant, husband of the non-applicant Shantibai, has directed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') for quashing the orders of the Court below dated 20.2.1998 and21.2.1997 respectively passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Biaora in Criminal Revision No. 40 of 1997 and the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biaora in Misc. Criminal Case No. 35 of 1987, whereby the learned Courts below granted maintenance allowance in favour of the non-applicant Shantibai and her minor children at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month from the date of filing of the application.
2. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that after separating the non-applicant and the minor children; he transferred agricultural land and the house for residence in favour of the minor children for their maintenance and as the non-applicant and the minor children are able to maintain themselves out of the income of the agricultural land, not entitled for any maintenance from the applicant. He also contended that the Courts below without mentioning any reasons awarded maintenance in favour of the non-applicant and made payable from the date of the application which is contrary to the provisions of Section 125(2) of the Code. The Courts below have committed an error in passing the impugned orders without taking into consideration of the aforesaid facts and granted maintenance allowance in favour of the non-applicant from the date of filing of the application.
3. On perusal of the record and the impugned orders, the learned Courts below on evaluating the evidence held that the actual possession of the land or house was not transferred to the non-applicant or the minor children and also held that the non-applicant and the minor children are unable to maintain themselves and granted maintenance allowance in their favour. The finding on the aforesaid point of both the Courts below is based on proper evaluation and appreciation of the evidence on record and it cannot be interfered with in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Code.
4. With regard to not mentioning any reasons for grant of maintenance from the date of filing of the application is concerned, on perusal of the order of the Trial Court it emerged that in para 17 of his order, the learned Magistrate had mentioned the facts on which he is convinced for grant of maintenance allowance in favour of the non-applicant and the minor children. It is true that the specific reasons for grant of maintenance payable from the date of the application are not mentioned in the order but in view of the facts stated in para 17 it can be presumed that the learned Magistrate had considered the said facts while allowing maintenance allowance made payable from the date of the application. In case of Gangabai v. Shivram,'l989 MPLJ 44=11 (1988) DMC 340, this Court has held as under :
'That when the Magistrate has given a finding that the applicant was forcibly turned out by the husband-opponent who never cared or tried to bring back the applicant and on the contrary married another woman. In such circumstances, it is not difficult to conceive that the applicant was driven to seek help and obligation of others quite unwillingly in order to survive during the period of litigation.....The reason for awarding the maintenance allowance for the period of litigation i.e. from the date of application to the date of the order is, in my opinion, implicit in the finding given by the trial Magistrate as aforesaid.'
5. It is also apparent from the record that in this case the applicant has exercised the right of revision against the order of the Magistrate granting maintenance in favour of the non-applicant payable from the date of the application. In case of Dharampal and Ors,. v. Smt. Ramshri and Ors., AIR 1993 SC 1361, the Apex Court held that an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be entertained if the applicant has exercised the right of Revision before the Sessions Court.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and the law applicable, no case for any interference in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Code is made out in favour of the applicant.
7. Consequently, this petition is devoid of any merit and substance. I decline its admission and dismiss the same summarily without any orders as to costs.