DHANWANTI DEVI Vs. SINGHASAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application was filed by Smt. Dhanwanti Devi claiming maintenance-allowance far herself and her two daughters Prern Lata and Hem Lata on the ground that she was legally wedded wife of Sing- hasan Singh and that the latter had neglected and failed to maintain her. She has no means of livelihood. The husband Singhasan Singh denied his liability to maintain Smt. Dhanwantii. He alleged that she was living an adulterous life and that Hem Lata was not his daughter, but was the off spring of the adulterous connection between Dhanwanti and one Chhabinath. The trial court on a consideration of the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the allegations of adultery made by Singhasan Singh against his wife Dhanwanti Devi had not been proved. He awarded a maintenance allowance of Rs. 125/- in favour of Smt. Dhanwanti and her two daughters Aggrieved thereby a revision was filed before the Sessions Judge. This revision was dismissed on 4th September, 76, as not pressed. Thereafter a second revision was filed before him which has been allowed on 12th November, 76, hence this revision by Smt. Dhanwantii Devi and her daughters.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and have also perused the impugned order.

(3.) COUNSEL for the applicant has relied upon a decision of the single Judge of this Court reported in 1976 ACC 245-Mohd. Haneef Khan v. Shamim Begum. The facts of that case disclosed that a revision application against the order of the trial court was filed at first before the Sessions Judge Shahjahanpur on 10-10-1975. Thereafter the same applicant filed a revision in the High Court on 17-11-1975. The applicant got his revision before the Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur dismissed on 18- 2-1976, as not pressed. This court held on 17th May, 1976 while deciding the revision filed before it, that the second revision application by the same person in the High Court was not maintainable. The learned Judge also made an observation that merely because the first application before the Sessions Judge was dismissed as not pressed, this cannot empower the High Court to entertain the second revision. From the facts above narrated, it is clear that the single Judge decision relied upon by the applicants would not apply to the facts of the present case, in so far as the bar of Section 397 (3) CrPC is concerned.