CHARAN SINGH Vs. JAYA WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Jaya Wati-Opposite Party No. 1 who is admittedly the wife of the revisionist filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was registered as Case No. 353/11 of 1985. This application was allowed on 13.11.1987 by 1st Judicial Magistrate, Meerut and Smt. Jaya Wati was granted Rs. 250/- per month as maintenance allowance.

(2.) In the year 1986 the revisionist fild an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act against Smt. Jaya Wati for restitution of conjugal rights. This application was registered as Petition No. 596 of 1986 and was decided by VIth Additional Civil Judge, Meerut on 25.2.1989. The petition was allowed and Smt. Jaya Wati was directed to live with revisionist and to perform her marital obligations. Aggrieved by this judgment and order Smt. Jaya Wati filed Civil Appeal No. 264 of 1989 which was dismissed on 9.9.1993 by VIIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut.

(3.) On 4.12.1992 Smt. Jaya Wati filed an application under Section 127(3) Cr.P.C. in the Family Court, Meerut for the recovery of Rs. 19,750/- as arrear of maintenance allowance. The revisionist filed an objection against this application stating that since his suit for restitution of conjugal rights has been decreed, Smt. Jaya Wati is not entitled for maintenance allowance. Learned Judge Family Court placed reliance upon the case of Sardar Surjeet Singh v. Smt. Rajendra Kaur [(1989), Allahabad Criminal Ruling, 575] and dismissed the objection of the revisionist vide his order dated 12.9.1994. The lower Court was of the opinion that inspite of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, Smt. Jaya Wati was entitled to claim maintenance allowance. On behalf of the revisionist the case of Smt. Mahtab Begum v. Ansar Ahmad (A.W.C. 398,1986) was cited. According to this ruling, the wife is not entitled for maintenance allowance after decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed against her. Learned Judge Family Court was of the opinion that since this judgment was delivered subsequent to the judgment delivered in the case of Smt. Mahtab Begum, hence this judgment is binding upon it. The result was that the objection of the revisionist was dismissed. Aggrieved by this judgment, husband has come to this Court in revision.