PRITHVI SINGH BANSAL Vs. SUSHILA DAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has come up before me along with criminal Revision No. 460 of 1972 in consequence of the order made by Shri S. C. Chaturvedi, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on the 30th of November, 1972 in exercise of the jurisdiction provided by section 438 of the criminal Procedure Code, hereafter called "the Code". Respondent Sushila Devi Gupta had filed a petition under section 483 of the Code against her husband Prithvi Singh Bansal claiming maintenance on the allegations that she was married with him on the 13th of Nay, 1968 at Delhi, but had b;en deserted and that she was not being looked after by the husband. In paragraph 9 of the petition it was asserted that the parties had last resided in Delhi.

(2.) Replying to the petition the husband raised the preliminary objection that he was living and working for gain at Modi Nagar, Uttar Pradesh and had never resided with his wife at Delhi. In paragraph 9 of his reply he stated that the application deserved to be dismissed because of the preliminary objections.

(3.) The parties adduced evidence before the trial Magistrate and dealing with the same in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of his judgement Shri S. M. Aggarwal, Judicial Magistrate, Delhi found that the parties had last resided in Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and therefore the Courts in Delhi had the jurisdiction to adjudicate as to what maintenance was to be awarded. He fixed monthly maintenance allowance at Rs. 75 per mensem. Aggrieved by the learned Magistrate's order a petition was preferred by the husband under sections 435/438 of the Code and the learned Additional Sessions Judge after perusing the evidence found that the Court below had ignored Ex.R.I which was a notice which had been issued to the husband at the instance of the wife.