Bihari Lal vs Kundal Dai and Another

Kuldip Singh, J.—This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 17.3.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla Camp at Rohru in Criminal Revision No. 4R/10 of 2006 and in Criminal Revision No. 15R/10 of 2008, both decided on 17.3.2012 by common order. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents had filed petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. which was allowed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohru on 13.11.2002. The respondents filed Execution Petition for executing judgment dated 13.11.2002. The petitioner took the objection that respondent No. 1 was not entitled to any maintenance as she was living in adultery. The objection was dismissed on 6.3.2006. The petitioner filed Crl. Revision No. 4R/10 of 2006 against the order dated 6.3.2006.

The petitioner again filed objections against execution of the judgment dated 13.11.2002. The main objection was that respondent No. 1 had been living in adultery and therefore, respondents were not entitled to any amount. The objections were dismissed on 13.10.2008. The petitioner filed Crl. Revision No. 15R/10 of 2008. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has dismissed Crl. Revision No. 4R/10 of 2006 and Crl. Revision No. 15-R/10 of 2008 by common order dated 17.3.2012.

It has not been denied that judgment dated 13.11.2002 in C. No. 99-4/2002 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohru was not assailed by petitioner and the judgment dated 13.11.2002 attained finality. The petitioner filed two sets of the objections in the execution petition and in both the objections the main ground was that respondent No. 1 was not entitled to maintenance as she was living in adultery. The judgment dated 13.11.2002 has attained finality.

The Executing Court cannot go behind the judgment dated 13.11.2002. The petitioner had not filed any application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. based upon change of circumstances for modification of judgment dated 13.11.2002. In these circumstances, no fault can be found in the order dated 17.3.2012. In addition, the petitioner filed revisions against the order dated 6.3.2006 and 13.10.2008 which were dismissed by common order dated 17.3.2012. The petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be permitted to be used as a second revision. There is no perversity in the impugned order nor there is any error of jurisdiction. The revisions of the petitioner against the orders dated 06.03.2006 and 13.10.2008 have been dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge by common order, there is no merit in the petition. Hence, petition is dismissed, so also the pending applications.