CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Gurcharan Singh vs Meena Kumari and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 4 July 1996 · Citation: (1997) 1 DMC 185 : (1996) 3 RCR(Criminal) 273

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.S. Sudhalkar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 125, 397, 482
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8941-M of 1992
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 366 words

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This petition is filed by the original respondent against whom order for maintenance of children i.e. respondent Nos. 2 and 3 u/s 125, Cr.P.C. was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not grant maintenance to the wife of the petitioner and granted maintenance to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month each.

2.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

3.

The Trial Court has considered that the income of the petitioner is Rs. 1, 300/- per month and ordered to pay Rs. 200/- per month each to the minor children. This order was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur in Criminal Revision No. 21 of 1991. Being dissatisfied by both the above said orders, this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed.

4.

The argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is earning Rs. 1.200/-per month and he has to maintain his mother and widowed sister and the amount granted for maintenance is very harsh and that he is ready to keep the minor children if the custody of the children is handed over to him. Even if this prayer for handing over the custody of the minor children is and considered by the other side then also he will have to spent not less than Rs. 200/- per month each for the maintenance of the minor children and that the orders of the Courts below cannot be said to be harsh.

5.

So far as the maintainability of this petition is concerned, the Supreme Court has decided this point in the case of Deepti @ Arti Rai v. Akhil Rai and Others, 1995 (3) RCR 638 : II (1995) CCR 47 . It is held by the Supreme Court that the second revision petition after dismissal of the first one was not maintainable and that the inherent power u/s 482, Cr.P.C. cannot be utilised. In view of this principle laid down by the Supreme Court also this petition is not maintainable, and deserves to be dismissed.

6.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.