RAM SINGH Vs. SOMAT BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 5th July, 2001, passed by J. M. F. C. , Rehli, in M. Cr. C. No. 10/2001, wherein, on account of non-payment of maintenance by this petitioner to the non-applicants, as ordered on 7th August, 1999, in M. Cr. C. No. 7/98, registered on non-applicants application, filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as Code, learned J. M. F. C. ordered the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 3500/- to non-applicant No. 1 else, he would have to undergo an imprisonment for a period of 5 months. The petitioner further seeks quashment of order dated 10th April, 2002, wherein, his challenge to aforesaid order dated 5th July, 2001, stood negatived by IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Camp Rehli, in petitioners' Cr. Rev. No. 13/2002.

(2.) AS per photocopy of certified copy of order dated 7th August, 1999, passed by J. M. F. C. , Rehli, in M. Cr. C. No. 7/98, this petitioner was ordered to pay maintenance to non-applicants under Section 125 of the Code, since the date of order, i. e. , 7-8-99. On account of non-payment of maintenance, the non-applicants filed a recovery petition, which stood registered as M. J. C. No. 10/2001, and in this petition, filed under Sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Code, it is ordered by the learned J. M. F. C. on 5-7-2001, that the petitioner shall pay to the non-applicants an amount of Rs. 3,500/- as arrears of maintenance else, he would have to undergo an imprisonment for a period of 5 months. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 5-7-2001, in Cri. Rev. No. 13/2002, on the ground that in his earlier Cri. Rev. No. 175/99, wherein, he challenged the order of maintenance dated 7-8-99, passed in M. Cr. C. No. 7/98, a compromise took place between the parties on 22-2-2000 and hence, the non-applicants started living with him, therefore, the order of maintenance dated 7-8-99, has no force. The learned IIIrd A. S. J. turned down the aforesaid objection by order dated 10-4-2002, and hence this petitioner has knocked the door of this Court, seeking exercise of inherent powers on the aforesaid ground taken up in the Revisional Court.

(3.) BUT affirming the view taken in the case reported in AIR 1932 Lahore 115, it is found dictated by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhupindm Singh v. Daljit Kaur, reported in AIR 1979 SC 442, that