THAKUR VYASNARAYAN SINGH Vs. HEMLATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a perusal of certified copy of order dated 23rd October, 2001, passed by IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in Criminal Revision No. 43/2001, (marked as Annexure P-4), filed by this petitioner challenging order dated 30th January, 2001, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sausar, in M. Cr. C. No. 31/2000, (the photostat copy of certified copy of the order is marked as Annexure P-3), so also Annexure P-3, reveals that on llth July, 2000, the non-applicant filed an application against this petitioner under Section 125 of the Cr. PC. The petitioner resisted the maintainability of the aforesaid application on the grounds that the non-applicant is possessed of sufficient means for her maintenance and the inordinate delay in filing this petition is not explained.

(2.) THE petitioner being unsuccessful in both the Courts below, has now approached this Court seeking interference under inherent powers.

(3.) REFERRING to the case Kuntibai (Smt.) v. Alakhram, reported in 1999 (1) JLJ Page 89, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the absence of justified explanation about the inordinate delay in filing the maintenance petition alone, the non-applicant's application was liable to be rejected, who is possessed of sufficient means for her maintenance.