PARVESH KUMARI BANSAL Vs. RAJ KUMAR BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order of mine will dispose of Crl. Revision No. 626 of 1987, Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 11049-M and 11050-M of 1992 as they have arisen out of a petition filed by the petitioner-wife, under Section 125, Cr. P. C.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that the marriage between the parties took place on 16. 11. 1984. According to the allegations of the wife, she was turned out of the house by the husband which led to the filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr. P. C. for maintenance. In the said petition, the Trial Magistrate awarded interim maintenance to the wife w. e. f. 17. 9. 1986, at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. The husband feeling aggrieved of this order, filed a revision petition before the Addl. Sessions Judge, who vide her order dated l4. 11. 1986 set aside the order of the Trial Magistrate on the ground that the trial Magistrate has not decided the question of jurisdiction, and also that the affidavit filed by the wife was not properly verified. On a fresh application filed by the wife, the Trial Magistrate vide order dated 17. 2. 1987, awarded interim maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month, with effect from the date of application, i. e. 17. 12. 1988. This order too was impugned by the husband before the Addl. Sessions Judge in revision. The revision petition was again accepted by the Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated 28. 5. 1987, only on the ground that affidavits of the parties were not in accordance with the provisions of Order 19, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure. The order of the Addl. Sessions Judge is now being impugned in the present petition.

(3.) CRIMINAL Misc. Petition No. 11049-M of 1992 has been filed by the wife for quashing of proceedings initiated under Section 340, Cr. P. C. by the husband on the ground that in execution of order of interim maintenance, the wife claimed maintenance with effect from the date of earlier application i. e. 7. 7. 1986, whereas she was entitled to maintenance w. e. f. 17. 12. 1986. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 11050-M of 1992 has again been preferred by the wife for quashing of pending proceedings under Section 340, Cr. P. C. initiated by the husband on the ground that the petitioner has wrongly stated in the affidavit that she is unemployed, whereas she was employed with M/s. Sheel Traders at Chandigarh. In Criminal Revision No. 626 of 1987, the husband is being represented by Mr. C. B. Kukar, Advocate, whereas in Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 11049-M and 11050-M of 1992, the husband is appearing in person.