Santosh Kumar vs Tara Singh

S.K. Jain, J.

In a petition filed by Smt. Santosh Kaur under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against her husband Tara Singh, Sh. D.S. China, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur vide his order dated November 10, 1987 granted Rs. 400/ monthly allowance w.e.f. July 31, 1985. This order was challenged by Tara Singh, respondent by way of Criminal Revision. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur accepted the said revision petition and remanded the case back to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur with a direction to afford an opportunity to Tara Singh and his counsel to crossexamine Jit Singh AW. 1 and Lal Singh AW. 3 and thereafter to produce his evidence and then after hearing arguments to decide the case afresh on merits. It was further directed that Tara Singh will pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/ out of the interim maintenance to Smt. Santokh Kaur until June 15, 1988 or shall deposit the said amount in the Court and that the remaining amount of maintenance shall be paid until September 15, 1988. Feeling aggrieved Smt. Santosh Kaur has challenged this order dated May, 13 1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur in this Criminal Revision before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards the provisions of Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge, had no jurisdiction to entertain the Revision Petition against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of November 10, 1987. I have carefully examined the said provisions, Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that all evidence in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made. When the provision is analytically examined it is evident that recording of evidence in presence of such a person included his right to crossexamine the witnesses appearing against him and further to lead defence evidence.

It is evident from the impugned judgment that Tara Singh had not been allowed to cross examine Jit Singh AW. 1 and Lal Singh AW.3. Furthermore, he was not allowed to produce evidence in his defence and as such he had been deprived of his very valuable right. That being so, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment which I hereby confirm. Resultantly this Revision Petition is dismissed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed is dispose of the case within six months from the date of the appearance of the parties before him. It is further ordered that Tara Singh husband shall pay the uptodate arrears of maintenance to Smt. Santosh Kaur by June 30, 1992. There will be no order as to costs.