Bhupinder Singh @Gurinder Singh vs Jaswant Kaur @Jasdeep Kaur and Others

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside order dated 14.12.2012, Annexure P2, vide which learned trial court imposed a condition of payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards interim maintenance upon the petitioner while deciding the application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 13.07.2010 and order 25.04.2013, Annexure P3, vide which revisional court dismissed the revision petition of petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record including the impugned orders passed by both the courts below.

Admitted facts are that, petitioner is husband of respondent no. 1 and father of respondents no. 2 and 3. Respondents filed a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance against the petitioner in the year 2003. Nothing was paid by present petitioner to respondents as maintenance. Provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is meant to provide speedy relief to wife and minor children so that they may be able to pursue their day to day life. Present petitioner was proceeded ex parte and thereafter, he appeared. He again intentionally did not appear and was again proceeded ex parte. Hence, petitioner was misusing the process of law and was not paying anything to respondents by way of maintenance. An application u/s 128 Cr.P.C. for recovery of arrears of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3,26,000/- is also pending before learned trial court. However, no payment has been made by the petitioner. Hence, in the background of these facts, the impugned order was passed by learned trial court.

In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned orders, warranting interference by this Court in its jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, the present petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.