BHAGWANT SINGH Vs. SURJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER it is obligatory for a Magistrate under Section 127 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to cancel or vary an earlier order of maintenance under Section 125 of the said Code strictly in accordance with the judgment of a competent civil Court specifically on the issue of maintenance, is the meaningful question which has necessitated this reference to the Division Bench.

(2.) THE facts disclose a long history of matrimonial discord betwixt the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife They were married more than 25 year? ago and even way back in 1960, a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming a decree of judicial separation was filed by the petitioner-' husband, which was, however, dismissed on September 27, 1963. Later, in the year 1965, the respondent-wife preferred an application for maintenance under Section 488 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, which was allowed and a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 50 was ordered on the 25th of June, 1965. Feeling dissatisfied later with the quantum of maintenance, the respondent-wife moved an application for enhancement thereof, but she did not meet with any success in the Court of the Magistrate who dismissed the same on the 16th of September, 1975. A revision petition was, however, carried against the same, which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, who by his order dated 6th of August, 1976, enhance ed the maintenance allowance to Rs. 65 per mensem.

(3.) APPARENTLY, not satisfied with the aforesaid maintenance, the respondent-wife filed a regular civil suit in the year 1973 against the petitioner-husband for the recovery of Rs. 12. 000 as maintenance allowance in the lump sum at the rate of Rs. 100 per mensem with an added prayer to have the said amount as a charge on the landed estate of the petitioner-husband. Two specific issues in the following terms were framed in the said suit, which were decided against the respondent-wife and, as a necessary consequence, the suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge by his judgment dated the 30th of April, 1974: