Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 696 (PNJ)

Lal Chand v. Sunita Rani

2002-07-22

V.M.JAIN

body2002
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by Lal Chand, against Sunita Rani, seeking quashment of the order dated 6.3.1998, passed by the Judicial Magistrate. 2. The facts, which are relevant for the decision of the present petition, are that in a petition Under Section 125, Cr. P.C. filed by Smt. Sunita Rani against Lal Chand, an ex parte order dated 21.8.1996 was passed, granting maintenance to the wife. Aggrieved against the said order of the learned Magistrate, Lal Chand filed Criminal Misc. No. 185-M of 1998 Under Section 482, Cr. P.C, seeking quashment of the aforesaid order dated 21.8.1996. The aforesaid Criminal Misc. No. 185-M of 1998 was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 8.1.1998, relegating the petitioner namely Lal Chand to his remedy of appearing before the Judicial Magistrate and to move appropriate application against the aforesaid order, seeking recall of the said order. It was further directed that once the said application is moved, the learned Magistrate shall afford reasonable opportunity to the petitioner namely Lal Chand as well as respondent namely Sunita Rani and dispose of the application in accordance to law. Thereafter, Lal Chand, petitioner, filed application for recalling/review of the order dated 21.8.1996 before the learned Magistrate. It was alleged that Smt. Sunita Rani had ceased to be his wife, as ex parte decree of divorce had been granted on 5.12.1995 and no case for granting her maintenance was made out. The said application was contested by Smt. Sunita Rani. 3. After hearing both the sides and perusing the record, the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 6.3.1998, dismissed the application filed by Lal Chand, holding that no case for recalling/review of the order dated 21.8.1996 was made out. Aggrieved against this order of the learned Magistrate, Lal Chand has filed the present petition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C., in this Court, seeking quashing of the aforesaid order dated 6.3.1998. 4. In my opinion, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. While dismissing the application of the present petitioner, Lal Chand, for recalling/review of the earlier order dated 21.8.1996, it was found by the learned Magistrate that in spite of the decree for divorce having been granted, the wife was entitled to maintenance Under Section 125, Cr. 5. While dismissing the application of the present petitioner, Lal Chand, for recalling/review of the earlier order dated 21.8.1996, it was found by the learned Magistrate that in spite of the decree for divorce having been granted, the wife was entitled to maintenance Under Section 125, Cr. P.C. Reliance was placed on the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court, in the case reported as Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal & Ors., 1979 Criminal LJ 3. It was also found by the learned Magistrate that vide order dated 21.8.1996, interim maintenance was granted to Smt. Sunita Rani and her minor son Master Monu @ Rs. 400/- and Rs. 200/- per month, respectively. It was also noticed that the defence of the,present petitioner, Lal Chand had been struck off. It was also observed by the learned Magistrate that there was no allegation that after the divorce, Smt. Sunita Rani had remarried and hence entitled to maintenance. Furthermore, the minor son was also entitled to receive the maintenance. 6. In my opinion, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order dated 6.3.1998, passed by the learned Magistrate, which may require interference by this Court in the present petition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. The learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in holding that even after the divorce, the wife was entitled to claim maintenance till she remarried and the minor child shall also be entitled to maintenance. 7. In view of the above finding no merit in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed.