MANGAL SINGH BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal application, preferred Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the proceedings of Crl. Case No. 98/2004, Smt. Nirmala Bhandari v. Mangal Singh Bhandari, pending before the C.J.M. Bageshwar.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 2-Smt. Nirmala Bhandari moved an application Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure which was allowed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/JM Bageshwar vide judgment and order dated 30.9.2005 whereby the Petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 800/- per month to Respondent No. 2 (Rs. 300/- for herself and Rs. 500/- for maintenance of her daughter Km. Hema till she attains majority). Against the said judgment and order dated 30.9.2005, the Petitioner preferred a revision which was partly allowed by the Sessions Judge Bageshwar vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2005 whereby he directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 500/- per month and the order dated 30.9.2005 was accordingly modified. It is pertinent to mention here that the Petitioner also preferred a petition for Dissolution of Marriage which came to be allowed by the District Judge, Bageshwar vide judgment and order dated 29.6.2005 whereby the decree of divorce was granted dissolving the marriage between the parties and the Petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 1.00 lacs to the Respondent as permanent alimony. Against the said order, the Respondent-Smt. Nirmala Bhandari preferred an appeal before this Court and vide judgment and order dated 27.3.2006, the appeal was dismissed, except for the amount of alimony which was increased to Rupees two lakhs from rupees one lakh. Thereafter on 6.9.2006 the Respondent moved an application before the court below for payment of Rs. 5500/- as arrears from 30.9.2005 till 30.9.2006 i.e. 11 months @Rs.500/- per month, as directed by the Sessions Judge, Bageshwar vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2005. In that application, learned CJM Bageshwar vide order dated 6.10.2006 directed the revisionist to pay the amount mentioned in the application within a month. Assailing the entire proceedings, this petition has been preferred.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the court below has erred in law while accepting the application moved by the Respondent for payment of Rs. 5500/- as arrears to the Respondent. I find force in this argument. In this case initially the Respondent moved an application Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 30.9.2005 thereby directing the Petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 800/- per month and against that order the Petitioner preferred a revision which was partly allowed whereby he was directed to pay Rs. 500/- per month. In the meantime the Petitioner also preferred a petition for dissolution of marriage which came to be allowed by the District Judge Bageshwar vide judgment and order dated 29.6.2005 whereby the marriage between the parties was dissolved and the Petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 1.00 lacs as permanent alimony. Out of the said amount, Rs. 50,000/- was directed to be fixed in the name of her daughter in some Nationalized Bank or Post Office and the rest of Rs. 50000/- was directed to be fixed in some bank or post office and from the interest accrued thereon, she would maintain herself and her daughter. Against that order, the Respondent also preferred an appeal which also came to be dismissed with the partial modification that the amount of permanent alimony was enhanced to Rs. 2.00 lacs and applying the same principle, the Respondent would maintain herself and her daughter from the interest accrued thereon from the revised amount of interest. Since the marriage between the parties has been dissolved and the permanent alimony has been granted to the Respondent i.e. Rs. 2.00 lacs by this Court, I find that now there is no ground to direct the Petitioner to pay the maintenance Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure separately inasmuch as the entire issue has now been settled and the alimony too has been granted to the Respondent to maintain herself.