D.B. Lal, J.
1. This revision petition is filed by Rulda against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kulu, whereby granting an application under Section 488 of the Criminal P.C. in favour of Kala Devi, he has been asked to pay her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month. The petitioner was married with Kala Devi some 8 years before the filing of the petition. About 6 years ago she fell sick and it was alleged that the petitioner neglected or refused to maintain her. A civil litigation under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act also started between the parties. The court wanted to effect reconciliation and the petitioner was asked to take Kala Devi with him and start maintaining her. She has already two daughters out of this wedlock. Instead of maintaining Kala Devi, the petitioner made her to reside in his old house at Kanial and he himself shifted to reside at his new house Mari. He also neglected and refused to maintain her so much so that the lady was left without food and dress and had to depend upon her parents. One of the daughters was even left with Kala Devi to meet her own fate. Thereafter Kala Devi filed an application under Section 488 for maintenance. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has granted her maintenance allowance of Rs. 70/- per month, and Rulda has filed the present revision petition against that order.
2. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court will not enter afresh into an appraisement of evidence. Nevertheless, I have gone through the statements of Kunj Lal, Tej Ram, Buddhi Singh, Atam Prakash and Kala Devi herself. It was established beyond doubt that the lady was left to her fate at the house at Kanial and the petitioner tot only refused or neglected to maintain her, but even started living at a separate residence. Obviously he never performed his marital duties. She was not attended to even during illness. The learned Counsel argued that whatever neglect or refusal was imputed against, stood condoned, because of the reconciliation when the petitioner brought her to live at Kanial. There is no question of condonation, in reality. It was the duty of the Civil Court to have brought about a compromise between the parties. The petitioner was prevailed upon to maintain his wife. Instead, he sustained his refusal to maintain her. The defence witnesses Budh Ram, Bambu and Rulda himself were rightly disbelieved by the Court below. In fact the neglect or refusal to maintain still continues and an order of maintenance will be appropriate in the circumstances.
3. The learned Counsel then submitted that an offer to reside with her husband can be made by the petitioner. Even a last minute offer to take back the wife may be sustainable in a certain situation. But if the last minute offer is open to scepticism as it is put forward with no other object than to ward off the obligation arising in the criminal proceeding, it Will hardly be honoured. At first the offer must be held to be genuine, and if it is so the wife can be asked as to what for she refuses to live with her husband. In the instant case even the offer Is not genuine and so no question arises for the wife to explain as to why she does not live with her husband.
4. I will, therefore, agree with the approach of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and also with his conclusions. The learned Counsel further pointed out that at first the revision should have been instituted before a Sessions Court. Rather it has been filed direct to the High Court, and in view of Gulam AH (1972) 2 Sim LJ 45 : 1972 Cri LJ 551 (Him Pra) a rule of practice has been violated. On this ground also the revision is not sustainable. In the ultimate analysis, no interference can be made with the order of the Magistrate, and the revision petition is rejected.