ORDER
S.L. Kochar, J.
1. This revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 20th February, 2001 passed by IIASJ Neemuch (Sessions Division, Neemuch) passed in Criminal Revision No. 169/2000 setting aside the order dated 31st May, 2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Neemuch in Misc. Criminal Case No. 4/1999 thereby allowing the application of the non-applicant wife for grant of maintenance at the rate of 1,000/- per month from the date of the application dated 8th January, 1999. It was also ordered for arrears of maintenance payable in 4 equal instalments commencing from 1st March, 2001. The Revisional Court has also ordered for grant of 500 rupees towards cost of the litigation.
2. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is as follows :
The non-applicant Dhapubai filed an application dated 8.7.1999 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance being legally wedded wife, before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. According to her, she got married with the applicant before 40 years and blessed with a daughter named Kailasibai, who also got married. The applicant Ratan Lal started giving ill-treatment after consuming liquor and turned her out from the house 15-16 years before. Thereafter, she was residing in Neemuch. She had also contended that the applicant entered into second marriage with one Laxmibai and out of their wedlock 2 daughters and 2 sons were born. After turning out Dhapubai, her husband Ratanlal did not even care for her maintenance. She was dependent upon her daughter Kailasibai. Dhapubai served a notice on the applicant but was of no avail. According to her, the applicant is a person having sufficient means by irrigated agricultural lands, therefore, was capable to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month towards maintenance to her. In counter to the application of the wife, applicant denied her allegation and submitted that she herself had deserted him without any cause. She had taken golden and silver ornaments as also cash of 35,000/- rupees from his house. She did not discharge her duties as wife and after taking ornaments and cash started residing at her own, in her parental house in village Malhargarh. She constructed a house and also running a grocery shop in the name and style of ‘Gayatri Kirana Stores’. By doing this business, she is earning monthly Rs. 500/-. She had also taken cash amount, fallen in the share of the applicant/ husband whereas her husband is earning his livelihood by doing labourer job and now he is about 60 years of age and somehow is earning Rs. 500-600 monthly. He submitted that on the contrary, the non-applicant/wife is able to maintain the applicant.
3. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, after examination of the statements of both the parties, rejected the application of the wife/non-applicant Dhapubai on the ground that she was able to maintain herself which is evident from the fact that she was maintaining herself since 17-18 years. The Trial Court has given finding about the second marriage of the applicant Ratanlal.
4. In the first revision before the Court below, Counsel for the non-applicant Dhapubai criticized the finding of the Trial Court as perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. According to him, the grocery shop was owned by her son-in-law Ramesh. Ramesh has also asserted this fact. Even then the Trial Court has given the finding that the grocery shop is owned by the non-applicant Dhapubai. She also contended that being a woman, she did not raise voice against ill-treatment of her husband but when she was unable to maintain herself only thereafter she had filed an application demanding maintenance.
5. As against this, Counsel for the applicant/husband Ratanlal has submitted that the application was filed by the wife after about 40 years of her marriage in the old age and the applicant’s age is about 60 years, and a sick person. They were residing separately since 15-20 years and the delay has not been explained by giving cogent and plausible reason. Therefore, no illegality, irregularity or perversity is committed by the Trial Court while rejecting the application filed by the non-Applicant/wife.
6. The revisional Court has accepted the finding of the Trial Court about second marriage of the applicant/husband and allowed the application for living separately and demanding maintenance.
7. The Revisional Court has assessed the evidence as well as the finding of the Trial Court and came to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence. For instance, “Gayatri Kirana Store” was not owned by the non-applicant/wife but the Trial Court has given finding that the said grocery shop was owned by Dhapubai/wife of the applicant though she denied this fact and her son-in-law Ramesh has specifically stated that the grocery shop is owned by him and not Dhapubai. Non-applicant Dhapubai also asserted that now she became old and is not able to maintain herself and she is depending upon her daughter Kailasibai.
8. The Trial Court has rejected the application of the wife for grant of maintenance on the ground that the wife was not able to prove by adducing cogent and reliable evidence that she was ill-treated, beaten and thereafter turned out by the applicant from her matrimonial home. The Trial Court has also held that applicant/wife has herself admitted in her evidence that she was residing separately from her husband/non-applicant since last 18-19 years but she was not able to prove by adducing any evidence as to how she was maintaining herself. She has also stated that she became old and fallen sick and Rs. 10,000/- have been incurred for her treatment. From where she got this much amount ? The Trial Court has also held that while wife/applicant file the application for maintenance after lapse of 18 years that too without explaining the delay. It has also been held by the Trial Court that the wife did not adduce any documentary evidence to establish that her husband was owing 50-60 bighas of agricultural land and earning 25,000/- rupees per month. Ultimately the Trial Court has rejected the application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. filed by the wife mainly on two grounds. One she was not able to prove that she was ill-treated and turned out from the house of her husband and she was unable to maintain herself. Whereas she was maintaining herself since last 18-19 years. Therefore, she did not deserve maintenance.
9. In this revision, the vital question is whether the first Revisional Court has exercised revisional powers in its proper perspective after re-appreciating the whole evidence. Normally, the revisional powers are being invoked when there is glaring defect in the finding arrived at by the Trial Court as well as there is direct breach of mandatory provisions or improper and illegal exercise of the provisions of law. This is settled principle which need not be emphasized elaborately that the Revisional Court should not disturb the finding of fact unless there is clear perversity in the judgment or order. The Supreme Court in Rajathi v. Ganesan, reported in VI (1999) DMC 93=AIR 1999 SC 2374, in para 12 of its judgment has held that:
“Rather in a case under Section 125 of the Code the Trial Court is to take a prima facie view of the matter and it is not necessary for the Court to go into matrimonial disputes between the parties in detail.”
10. In view of the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court, the Revisional Court should have not interfered with the finding of fact. There is no limitation prescribed for filing the application for grant of maintenance by the wife but the same should have been filed within reasonable period. Otherwise, in all cases, in which State does not provide limitation, the question of prolong delay in filing petition/litigation cannot be looked into and considered. Recourse to the law after a long belated stage without giving reasonable and plausible explanation itself is sufficient to reject the prayer of the litigant. No doubt, Section 125, Cr. P.C. is meant for saving the wife from destitution but at the same time, she has to make out prima facie case in her favour. This Court has occasion to consider the case Kamlabai v. Gajanan, reported in 1984 MPWN Note No. 17, when the wife has left the house of the husband at her own and did not return for years, contracting second marriage by the husband would not give her right to claim maintenance on this ground after lapse of about 20 years.
11. In the present case overall factual matrix is spelling very clearly that NA/husband had incurred expenses for marriage of their daughter and thereafter his wife has left the house. Thereafter so many years, the husband contracted second marriage. The applicant is not able to prove time, date, month or a year of second marriage. As the Trial Court has given finding that the wife/applicant was not able to prove that she was forced to leave the house or turned out of the house by way of ill-treatment showing the fact that she left the house at her own accord and even didn’t try to return. This is also evident from her conduct and evidence of sending notice in the year 1988, prior to that she kept silent. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Ghurava Bai v. Vishnu Ram, reported in I (2002) DMC 324=2002 (1) MPJR-CG 26, on the point that since there is no limitation prescribed either in the Criminal Procedure Code or Limitation Act, the application for maintenance cannot be rejected only on the ground of delay. In this case, the High Court has held that very specifically that the sufficient evidence was adduced to explain delay whereas in the present case, absolutely no evidence has been adduced by the wife to explain delay in filing the application after such a belated state.
12. The revisional Court has appreciated the evidence giving due weight to the statement of witnessess of wife/applicant whereas their case has been duly contradicted by the witness of non-applicant/husband and they have deposed that wife is having grocery shop in the name of “GAYATRI KIRANA STORES” in village Malhargarh. This appears to be true and just because Ramesh son-in-law of the applicant, and other witnesses examined by the applicant, nowhere stated that they were bearing entire expenses of the applicant since last about 20 years and now they are unable to bear the expenses for her maintenance.
13. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings given by the Trial Court who had full opportunity to watch demeanor of the parties the Revisional Court should have not disturbed the finding of fact after re-appreciating the whole evidence. Though two views may be possible but in revisional jurisdiction, the view taken by the Trial Court which was logical and based on material on record should have not been disturbed. Therefore, the revision filed by the applicant being devoid of any substance, I decline its admission and the same is dismissed.