BABOO @ ABDUL RASHID Vs. BANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. praying for quashing the order dated 18 -5 -79 granting maintenance to the respondent as also the order (Annexure -5) as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 17 -7 -1981 in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 1980 and Criminal Revision No. 22 of 1980.

(2.) BRIEF facts for the purposes of deciding the present application are that the opposite party Shrimati Bano filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for granting of maintenance against the applicant. A compromise was filed in the aforesaid application and on that basis the application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. was decided by the Magistrate. As the applicant failed to pay the maintenance in pursuance of maintenance order granted, the opposite party moved an application for realising the maintenance amount. It is at this stage that the applicant filed an application for setting aside the order granting maintenance on the ground that the compromise was obtained by playing fraud on the applicant. The aforesaid application has been rejected. Feeling aggrieved by the order granting the maintenance and rejecting the application for setting aside the order granting maintenance, the applicant preferred two revisions which have been disposed of by the Sessions Judge by his two orders dated 17 -7 -1981.

(3.) I have also heard the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting opposite party. It has not been disputed that the application by the learned Counsel for the applicant before the Sessions Judge was moved before the Judgment in the two revisions were signed. A bare perusal of the order rejecting the application moved by the learned Counsel for the applicant shows that it has not been rejected on the ground that no sufficient cause was disclosed in the application for not appearing at the time when the revisions were called for hearing. The Sessions Judge, admittedly had no power hear the applicant in case the Judgment had been signed as that would have amounted to reviewing his order. However it could not be said that the Sessions Judge had no power to hear the applicant before the judgment had been signed. In my opinion, therefore, the Sessions Judge was wrong in not hearing the applicant when the application had been moved before the judgment had been signed on the same date. The two orders of the Sessions Judge dated 17 -7 -1981 are, therefore liable to be quashed. The Sessions Judge will hear the two Criminal Revisions Nos. 10 of 1980 and 22 of 1980 afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the parties.