For three calls, none appears for the revisionist. Heard Mr.Nanavati, learned APP for the State and Mr.Patel for respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by judgment and order dated 07/04/2005 rendered by Family Court No.3, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.1034 of 2004. The said application was preferred by the revisionist under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming maintenance against the respondent. According to her, respondent is her husband and she was driven out of the house after ill-treatment on 02/04/2004. However, the trial Court found that the applicant had suppressed a material fact of divorce arrived at between the revisionist and the respondent on 31/01/2004 where the revisionist had waived her right of maintenance and therefore the application under Section 125 was dismissed by the Family Court.
3. This Court has examined the judgment impugned, so also, the record and proceedings. It transpires that the application is silent about the fact of mutual divorce and the fact that revisionist had waived her right of maintenance. In her deposition also, she does not say anything about the divorce, but when she is confronted with the divorce stage during her cross-examination, she states that the said signature on said divorce is obtained under threat and Rs.55,000/- of permanent alimony was never paid to her. The trial Court has rightly observed that if this was correct, she would have certainly mentioned about the same in her application and would have lodged the FIR about the conduct of the respondent and, therefore, she has not approached the Court with clean hands.
4. The trial Court was also justified in observing that the divorce took place on 31/01/2004 where the say of the applicant is that she was driven out of the house on 02/04/2004; which is incorrect fact. In this circumstances, if the trial Court has refused to exercise discretion in favour of applicant and award maintenance, the Court cannot be faulted with. This Court dose not find any defect in the judgment and order calling for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The Revision must fail and stands dismissed. Rule discharged.
5. It would be open for the parties to approach the High Court Mediation Center for referring the dispute for mediation.
(A L DAVE, J.) sompura