AVTAR SINGH Vs. HARBHAJAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Avtar Singh petitioner through this Criminal Miscellaneous under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks the quashing of the order dt. 22.1.1987 of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib and order dated 19.12.88, passed in revision by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ropar.

(2.) Brief facts, leading to the present proceedings are that Smt Harbhajan Kaur respondent 1, who is the wife of the petitioner, made an application under section 125 of the Cr. P. C. for the grant of maintenance to herself and her three minor sons, respondents 2 to 4 herein. The learned Magistrate allowed the application and ordered the petitioner-husband to pay maintenance at Rs. 200/ per month to respondent-1 and at Rs. 100/ p.m. to each of the respondents 2 to 4. Being not satisfied with the impugned order, the petitioner preferred a revision which was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge. Ropar.

(3.) In view of the provisions of section 397(3), Cr P. C., no second revision is competent. This section, however, does not bar the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code. However as laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Charanjit Singh v. Gursharan Kaur, 1990 2 RCR(Cri) 584, this Court will apply its own limitations and will interfere only in rare cases. After a persual of the orders of both the Courts below. I find that the evidence about neglect and refusal of the petitioner-husband to maintain his wife and minor children has been gone into in detail. There was previous litigation between the husband and the wife and earlier application for maintenance was withdrawn by respondent-1, on the assurance given by the petitioner husband to maintain her and her minor children. Subsequently, he made no effort to bring her back, with the minor children and it was only when subsequently, application under section 125 of the Cr PC was brought that the petitioner approached the Sarpanch with an application which is shown to have been drafted on 9.2.87 while the same was presented to the Sarpanch on 8.3.87. The learned Addl Sessions Judge did not find the same to be of any benefit. I, thus conclude that no case for interference in the impugned proceedings is made out Thereby dismiss the criminal miscellaneous.