RATTAN SINGH Vs. HARBHAJAN KAUR ALIAS HARDIP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RATTAN Singh has filed this revision against the order dated 16th January, 1984, to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby he allowed the revision of Harbhajan Kaur respondent and ordered that the earlier order dated 2nd September, 1982, granting maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 150 a month would stand.

(2.) HARBHAJAN Kaur respondent was married to Rattan Singh petitioner in the year 1972. On 18th July, 1981, she filed a petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner claiming maintenance on the ground that she was maltreated by the petitioner and turned out of the house. The trial Magistrate vide his order dated 2nd September, 1982, granted Rs. 150 per month as maintenance allowance to the respondent. Both the parties went in revision before the Sessions Judge the petitioner praying for the cancellation of the order while Harbhajan Kaur praying for the enhancement of the maintenance allowance. However, both the parties withdrew their respective revision petitions on 20th January, (198..sic) Rattan Singh petitioner then filed a petition under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 14th February, 1983, praying therein that in view of a compromise between the parties, they had started living together and that in this changed situation the order dated 2nd September, 1982, be rescinded. On the basis of a statement made by Shri S.S. Sidhu, Advocate. the learned Magistrate granted the petition under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and rescinded the order of maintenance vide his order dated 4th May, 1983. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tarn Taran, Harbhajan Kaur respondent went in revision before the Sessions Judge. In the petition she took up the plea that a fraud had been practised upon her and that she never engaged Sh. S. S. Sidhu as her counsel nor did she ever agree for the cancellation of the order granting maintenance.

(3.) IT may be pertinent to note that as per the order of the learned Magistrate the respondent was present on 3rd May, 1983, in the Court but he did not record her statement and adjourned the case to 4th May. 1983. Before the learned Magistrate could pass the final order in the petition under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the father of the respondent moved an application dated 11th March, 1983, before the Magistrate praying that Harbhajan Kaur respondent was illegally being detained by the petitioner, that she could be produced in the Court and her statement be recorded. However, the learned Magistrate without calling for the respondent proceeded with the application and passed the order of cancellation of the maintenance order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge whose order is under challenge in this revision came to a definite finding on the basis of the record that Harbhajan Kaur never made any statement before the Court, that it was not possible to know whether Harbhajan Kaur respondent was actually present before the Court on 3rd May, 1983, that it was strange that on 3rd May, 1983, when Harbhajan Kaur respondent was shown to have been present in the Court her statement could not be recorded and that it was on the next day that the statement of Shri S. S Sidhu was recorded. He came to a further finding that without there being any statement of the respondent on record agreeing to the cancellation of the maintenance order could be passed. I have perused the whole record with the help of the learned counsel for the parties I find that there is no irregularity in the order of the learned Sessions Judge. He was rightly observed that the learned Magistrate should not have passed the order of cancellation of the maintenance order without having recorded the statement of the respondent or without having ascertained as to whether she agreed to such an order. Consequently I am of the view that this petition has no merit. It is hereby dismissed.