Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1430 (PNJ)

Rupi v. Ram Bhaj

2001-12-21

V.M.JAIN

body2001
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C, filed by the petitioner-wife, against the respondent-husband, seeking quashment of the order dated 8.12.1993, passed by the Judicial Magistrate and the order dated 9.5.1995, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. 2. Annexure P3 is the copy of the order dated 8.12.1993, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal, dismissing the application of the petitioner-wife for the grant of maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C, on the ground that the petitioner-wife had failed to join the respondent-husband and the execution petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was also dismissed. It was further held that the petitioner-wife was not entitled to claim any maintenance from the respondent-husband, as it was not proved that the respondent-husband had turned her out of the matrimonial home or had treated her with cruelty. The revision petition, filed by the petitioner-wife in the Sessions Court, was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 9.5.1995. Aggrieved against these orders, the petitioner-wife filed the present petition in this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C, seeking quashment of the aforesaid orders passed by the Courts below. 3. Initially notice of motion was issued. Records of both the Courts below was requisitioned and subsequently, the petition was admitted to final hearing. 4. When the petition came up for hearing before me on 22.10.2001, no one had put in appearance, either on behalf of the petitioner or on behalf of the respondent. However, an adjournment slip had been filed on behalf of the petitioner with no objection from the other side. In the interest of justice, the case was adjourned to 23.11.2001 for arguments and it was made clear that no further date shall be given. On 23.11.2001, again no one had put in appearance on behalf of the parties and the case was adjourned to 7.12.2001. On that date as well, no one had put in appearance, either on behalf of the petitioner or on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, the petition and the record of the Courts below were perused and the judgment was reserved. 5. I have gone through the record of this petition as also record of the Courts below. 6. On that date as well, no one had put in appearance, either on behalf of the petitioner or on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, the petition and the record of the Courts below were perused and the judgment was reserved. 5. I have gone through the record of this petition as also record of the Courts below. 6. The present petitioner had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent, seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. In the said petition, the respondent-husband had given a statement that he was prepared to keep the petitioner as his wife and had no objection if the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed against him. After passing of the aforesaid decree, the present petitioner had filed execution petition for execution of the. aforesaid decree under Section 9 of the aforesaid Act. The said execution petition was dismissed by the learned District Judge, observing that the petitioner-wife was not prepared to live and co-habit with the respondent husband. It was also found that the fault lies with the petitioner and not with the respondent and treating that there was a refusal on the part of the petitioner wife, the execution petition was dismissed. After considering the entire evidence led by the parties, the learned Judicial Magistrate found that the respondent was willing and ready to keep the petitioner as his wife. It was found that inspite of having a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the petitioner did not join the respondent, even though the respondent had gone to his in-laws to take the petitioner, but the petitioner had refused to accompany either from the Court or from the village. The Court also found that the execution petition, filed by the petitioner for the execution of the decree under Section 9 of the aforesaid Act, was also dismissed, as the petitioner was held responsible for not joining the respondent and every time she had made lame excuses. It was further found that the petitioner was not entitled to claim any maintenance from the respondent, as the fault lies with the petitioner in not joining the respondent and it was not proved that the respondent had turned her out of the matrimonial home or had treated her with cruelty. 7. It was further found that the petitioner was not entitled to claim any maintenance from the respondent, as the fault lies with the petitioner in not joining the respondent and it was not proved that the respondent had turned her out of the matrimonial home or had treated her with cruelty. 7. As referred to above, the revision petition, filed by the petitioner-wife, against the aforesaid order dated 8.12.1993, passed by the Judicial Magistrate was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 9.5.1995 and the order dated 8.12.1993 passed by the Judicial Magistrate was upheld and it was held that the petitioner-wife failed to prove that the respondent-husband had kept another woman in his house, as alleged and that there was no illegality in the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate. 8. After going through the entire record, in my opinion, there is no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the Courts below, which may require interference by this Court, in the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.