AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.G. Deshpande, J.—Heard Advocate for respondent No. 1 and learned APP for the State. Nobody is present for the applicant. The wife/applicant has challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara [S.G. Hartalkar] dated 6th April, 1994 by which the respondent/husband''s revision was allowed and the wife''s petition for maintenance was dismissed on the ground that the wife''s petition was hit by the principles of res judicata.
I have gone through the entire record and it appears that wife had filed maintenance application bearing No. 244 of 1988, but the same was dismissed on merits. Thereafter she filed Criminal Revision before the Sessions Court vide Criminal Revision Application No. 232 of 1989. But the same was withdrawn on 17.1.1991. However, prior to that, the wife filed fresh application for maintenance before the Magistrate vide Misc. Application No. 273 of 1990 She succeeded in the said application and the husband has challenged the said order before the Sessions Judge vide Criminal Revision Petition No. 137 of 1991. The husband contended that since the wife''s petition for maintenance u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. vide application No. 244 of 1988 was decided on merits, her fresh application No. 273 of 1990 was not tenable on the principles of res judicata.
From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the Additional Sessions Judge has rightly allowed the petition of the husband on the ground that the subsequent petition for maintenance was hit by general principle of res Judicata. Hence no interference is called in the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and consequently the application is dismissed.