JASOLAL AGRAWALLA ALIAS JASOLAL JAIN Vs. PUSHPABATI AGRAWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party asserting herself to be the wife of the petitioner filed a petition before the J.M.F.C., Kantabanji claiming monthly maintenance from the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The said petition was registered as Cri.Misc.Case No.41 of 1980. According to the opposite party -wife the marriage between her and the petitioner -husband was solemnized on 17th May, 1970 and that the petitioner without any justifiable reason ill -treated and deserted her thereby causing immense hardship to her. She had no means to sustain herself and was constrained to knock at the portals of the Court. The JMFC after hearing the case by a reasoned order passed on 4th January, 1992 allowed the Cri. Misc. Case granting maintenance of Rs.300.00 per month to the opposite party -wife with effect from 1st of September, 1981 and directing the petitioner -husband to pay the same. Being aggrieved by the said order of the JMFC, the petitioner -husband filed Criminal Revision bearing number 6/9 of 1992 before the Addl.Sessions Judge, Titilagarh. The revisional Court confirmed the order of the JMFC and dismissed the Revision. Invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC the petitioner -husband challenged the orders of the Courts below in CRMC No.2291 of 1992. According to him the dispute inter se between the parties was the subject -matter of Title Suit No.14 of 1980 in which a decree for dissolution of marriage was passed on the ground that the opposite party -wife had deserted him. It was further averred by him that T.S. No.33 of 1980 filed by the opposite party -wife claiming maintenance from him was dismissed for default. Similarly, T.S. No.15 of 1984 filed by the opposite party -wife for setting aside the ex parte decree of dissolution of marriage passed in T.S. No.14 of 1980 was also dismissed for default. According to the petitioner -husband notwithstanding the aforesaid decrees of civil court, the JMFC illegally granted maintenance in favour of the opposite party -wife and the same had been mechanically confirmed by the revisional Court and that it was a fit case where the orders of the Courts below ought to be quashed. This Court disposed of the said CRMC No.2291 of 1992 by order dated 30th September, 1993 quashing the orders of both the Courts below and remitting the matter back to the JMFC for fresh disposal thereof in accordance with law.

(2.) THEREAFTER the case was once again heard by the JMFC and by order dated 26th March, 1996 the JMFC holding that he opposite party -wife was entitled to maintenance, allowed the petitioner filed by her and granted maintenance to her at the rate of Rs.300.00 per month from the date of her filing the petition, i.e. 21.8.1980. The husband -petition again assailed the said order dated 26th March, 1996 of the JMFC before this Court in Crl.Rev. No.239 of 1996. This Court by judgment dated 12th August, 1998 disposed of the said Crl.Rev. No.239 of 1996 holding that the petition filed by the opposite party -wife under Section 125 CrPC was maintainable and she was entitled to monthly maintenance. But then in the given facts and circumstances of the case this Court held that the opposite party -wife was not entitled to maintenance till the date on which the decree for dissolution of marriage was passed, i.e. 21st August, 1981/29th August, 1991. Consequently this Court modified the order of maintenance passed by the JMFC as to the date from which the opposite party -wife was entitled to monthly maintenance as stated above. The aforesaid judgment of this Court has been reported in (1998)15 OCR 222 (Jasholal v. Smt. Pushpabati).

(3.) THE matter did not end there. The petitioner -husband filed SLP before the Supreme Court which was registered as SLP (CRIMINAL) No.502 of 1999 and was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 17th September, 1999 with the following observation : - "The ground urged by the petitioner is that he obtained a decree for divorce on the ground that the respondent had deserted him. He contends that in view of the said decree he cannot be mulated with liability to pay maintenance allowance to the respondent. If the said statement is correct, petitioner has a remedy under Section 127(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We dispose of this SLP without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to pursue the aforesaid remedy."