CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Pawan Kumar vs Chanchal Kumari

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 21 August 1987 · Citation: (1987) 2 AICLR 1083 : (1987) CCC 310 : (1987) CivCC 310 : (1987) 2 RCR(Criminal) 454

HON’BLE JUDGES
Harbans Singh Rai, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3409-M of 1987
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

5 paragraphs · 342 words

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

1.

This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which a challenge has been made to an interim JUDGMENT of maintenance passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala. The respondent Chanchal Kumari filed a petition under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, for claiming maintenance from the petitioner and on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court in Savitri v. Govind Rawat, 1985 Marriage Law Journal 561; 1986(1) Recent CR 83, prayed for interim maintenance. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate awarded Rs. 200/ per menses as interim maintenance to the respondent. The Petitioner filed a revision against the order of maintenance which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, vide his order dated March 20, 1987.

2.

The petitioner has prayed that both the parties have agreed to live separately by mutual agreement and in lieu of maintenance the respondent had received Rs. 10,000/ and had waived her right to claim maintenance. The respondent has denied any such agreement and has challenged that she never received Rs. 10,000/. The case of the respondent is that when she was turned out of the house she was forced to sign certain papers.

3.

The execution of the agreement is hotly contested and both the Courts have given a finding against the petitioner.

4.

In a petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. I will not go into the disputed facts. The respondent has only been given ad interim maintenance and final orders are to be passed by the Magistrate after recording evidence. I do not think it is a fit case where invoking of inherent powers under section 482, Cr.P.C. is called for as only interim arrangement has been made by the Magistrate. Consequently, this petition is dismissed, but the trial Court is directed to complete the case within three months and if the trial Court finds that the respondent is not cooperating in leading evidence then it will reconsider the award of interim maintenance in the light of the conduct of the respondent.