Usha Rani vs Baldev Singh

G.S. Chahal, J.

Shrimati Usha Rani, petitioner by means of this criminal miscellaneous under section 482, Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks the quashing of the JUDGMENTs Annexures P. 1 and P. 2.

The petitioner brought an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. which was decided by Sh. Dhian Singh, Judicial Magistrate I class, Ferozepur, vide his order dated 22.4.1990, and the application was dismissed. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner went in revision which was heard by Sh. Charanjit Jawa, Additional Sessions Judge who, vide his judgment dated 11.10.1991 dismissed the same.

The petitioner claims desertion on the part of the respondenthusband and refusal to maintain her. Admittedly, there has been previous litigation between the parties. Application under section 125 Cr.P.C. had been brought by the petitioner against the respondent husband, while the respondent brought a petition under section 9, Hindu Marriage Act. A compromise was then effected and the petitionerwife returned to her matrimonial home. She alleges that she was turned out of her matrimonial home some time after her rehabilitation. The learned Magistrate was impressed by the fact that according to the statement of her father, he was willing to send her to the house of her husband if he lived separately from his parents and also told that the same was the wish of the applicant. The learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge were impressed by this part of the evidence and thus, a finding was recorded that it was the applicantwife who was not willing to live with the respondent.

In view of Surjit Kaur and others v. Tarlochan Singh, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 351, no second revision is competent. The provisions of Section 482, Cr.P.C. are to be invoked for special reasons. Since in the present case, both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence brought on the record by the parties and it was on the assessment of the evidence that the petitioner was held to be not entitled to maintenance, no case is made out for interference by this Court in its inherent jurisdiction. It is also stated at the bar that the proceedings are pending before the matrimonial Court. The question of allowing interim maintenance and ultimately proper alimony can be gone into by the Court. I find no merit in this criminal miscellaneous and the same is hereby dismissed.