USHA DEVI Vs. VED PRAKAAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. A. Rahim, J. List revised. None appears for the applicant. Sri A. Dayal, holding the brief of Sri D. P. Singh appears for the respondent.

(2.) THIS revision has been preferred by the applicant against the order of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, dated 8. 4. 1985 in Criminal Revision No. 43 of 1984 by which he allowed the revision preferred by the husband and dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. In the body of the judgment he has given two reasons, firstly, that the learned Magistrate did not find out the reason for desertion and, secondly, that the learned Magistrate did not arrive at the conclusion about the monthly income of the husband. He himself has answered the second point relying on a decision that every able bodied person must maintain his wife. So the question of not determining the in come of the husband does not arise. With regard to the finding of the learned Magistrate as to the reason for desertion, the learned Judge after relying on the evidence led the parties wanted to ascertain the reason for such desertion by making conciliation. The Court of law is not barred to dp it. But if he wants to derive any con clusion from the conciliation proceeding he must record a memorandum to the said con ciliation proceeding and only after doing it he can rely the contents of the said memorandum in the judgment. The said process being not taken by the learned Judge I must say that any decision depend ing on such conciliation proceeding must be set aside.

(3.) WITH the above observations, the revision is disposed of. Revision disposed of. .