Yoginder Singh vs Lekha @ Rekha Devi

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of orders dated 22.01.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra and order dated 03.09.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra, vide which, the application for interim maintenance of the Respondent was allowed.

The facts, in short are that the present Petitioner got married with Respondent on 25.05.1980. The Respondent-wife is a house hold lady and has no source of income. She was forced to leave her matrimonial house as she was maltreated during the period, she remained in her matrimonial home. The Respondent-wife filed petition u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure She also filed an application for grant of ad-interim maintenance @ Rs. 1,0000/-per month and litigation expenses. The trial Court granted the Respondent a sum of Rs. 1000/-p.m. as ad-interim maintenance from the date of filing of application.

Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed criminal revision in the Court of Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. The said revision petition was dismissed and the order granting ad-interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1000/-per month was upheld.

Aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed the present petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure While impugning the order of the Courts below, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that ;

(a) the Petitioner suffers from 70% disability. As such, he is living with his eldest son who earns Rs. 2000/-p.m and he is totally dependent on him.

(b) He is living on pension of Rs. 300/-which has been enhanced by Rs. 500/-by the Haryana Government.

Heard.

Second revision u/s 397(2) Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable. The present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C is nothing but a second revision petition under the garb of Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure It is a well settled proposition of law that the same is not maintainable, unless and until, any injustice has been caused or there has been misuse of process of law. No such argument or ground has been brought to the notice which may enable this Court to come to the conclusion that injustice has been caused in the facts of the present case.

Even on merits, the contention of the Respondent before the two courts below is that the Petitioner is running a clinic at Ladwa, Tehsil Thanesar and is earning Rs. 20,000/-p.m. Even if, it is accepted that the said averment is not correct or there is no proof that he is earning Rs. 20,000/-p.m., the facts as of now speak for themselves which are as under:

(a)The Petitioner got married with Respondent and seven children were born out of the said wedlock.

(b) Out of the seven children, three children expired. Out of the four surviving children, Kuldeep Singh, who is the earning hand is living with his father.

(c) The Petitioner is present in the Court. He may be handicapped orthopedically but does not appear to be totally helpless.

(d) The possibility that the Petitioner is admittedly working in the Clinic if not running the clinic, cannot be ruled out at this stage. The case is still pending. Evidence is going on.

Thus, the Petitioner has not come out with the entire truth with respect to his income. The Respondent, on the other hand, is house wife with no source of income. The Petitioner is duty bound to look after her. In fact, the son of the Petitioner had given an affidavit that the Petitioner is running a clinic. Only a meager amount of Rs. 1,000/-has been awarded which is hardly sufficient to sustain oneself.

In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.