Rishi Pal vs Kamlesh Rani

G.S. Chahal, J.

Rishi Palpetitioner, by means of this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of orders Annexures P1 and P2 dated July 10, 1993 and May 29, 1992 respectively.

The respondent who is the wife of the petitioner brought an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance to herself and her two minor children on the allegations that she was married to the petitioner about 15 years prior to the filing of the application and out of this wedlock two children were born. That about two years earlier, she along with her children was turned out of the house and she had no source of income while the petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs. 1600/ per mensem by employment in Railway Workshop, Jagadhri. This application was contested by the petitioner.

Though there was no plea of the petitioner in his reply that the respondent was leading adulterous life yet he led evidence inclusive of the statement of Dr. Ritu Magoo, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Yamunanagar to the effect that Kamlesh had been admitted to the Hospital on September 30, 1991 with a pregnancy of five months and a stillborn child was removed from her womb on October 1, 1991. On the basis of this evidence, it was tried to be established that the respondent was leading adulterous life and not entitled for maintenance.

The learned Magistrate while dealing with this aspect of the matter did not accept the evidence, but further held that even if this is accepted as single act of adultery cannot deprive the respondent of maintenance.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision did not accept the evidence of adultery led on the part of the respondent. The evidence brought forth was not accepted to be sufficient to confirm the identity of the respondent with the one who was operated upon for abortion in the hospital. The plea of adultery did not find mention either in the reply to the application or in the petition for divorce brought forth by the petitioner. Even Kamlesh Rani was not recalled to confront with the adultery charge. The findings of both the Courts below are, thus based on correct assessment of the evidence brought forth. The petitioner had selected the forum of Sessions for revision and that revision having been dismissed, he cannot maintain a second revision. Provisions u/s 482 cannot be invoked unless some special circumstances are established. No such facts having been brought forth, no case is made out for invoking jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. This petition is hereby dismissed.