SHAHANA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) List has been revised. None is present either from the side of revisionist or from the side of opposite party No.2. Learned AGA is present.

(2.) An application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hapur (Ghaziabad) which was registered there as Case No.192 of 2000. It was moved by the revisionist for maintenance against her husband for herself and her minor son. During the pendency of the petition, opposite party No.2, Fayyaz, moved an application before the learned Magistrate on 17.8.2002 informing the court that he had already divorced the petitioner and had also informed his decision to her through registered post as well as by sending a telegram to her. In the said application, the opposite party No.2 had requested the court that the proceeding should be truncated and the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. should be dismissed. The said application was contested by the revisionist. She had specifically said in her objection that she has not been divorced by opposite party No.2 and. therefore, the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be dismissed at that stage.

(3.) The learned Magistrate heard the parties and on 7.9.2002 he passed an order in which he held that the factum of divorce was disputed as the husband was alleging that he had divorced his wife whereas the wife was denying this fact and she was also denying that she had received any such communication from her husband. In his order dated 7.9.2002, the learned Magistrate kept that application pending as he was of the opinion that the said application should be disposed of along with the main petition. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 7.9.2002, the opposite party No.2 preferred a revision before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hapur (Ghaziabad). After hearing both the parties, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and held that the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stood dismissed as far as it related to the revisionist but it was to continue as far as her son was concerned. Feeling aggrieved by this judgment and order dated 22.8.2003 passed in Criminal Revision No.460 of 2002, the present revision has been filed.