JAGAT RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MST . Jogindro respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance against her husband Jagat Ram. The application was decided by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nawanshahar on 3rd February, 1989 and she was allowed a sum of Rs. 300/- per mensum as maintenance. Against this order a revision petition was filed by Jagat Singh which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on 10.9.1990. Respondent No. 2 had also filed a complaint under Section 494 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. against Jagat Ram and others alleging that Jagat Ram had performed second marriage with Bhulli. She, however, failed to prove the allegations made in the complaint and the same were dismissed vide order Annexure P/2. After the dismissal of the complaint an application was filed by Jagat Ram against Jogindro under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for cancellation of maintenance allowance. This application was filed on the ground that while disposing of the complaint under Section 494 I.P.C. the Court had given findings that marriage of Jogindro with him was not proved and she was not his legally wedded wife. This application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawanshahar on 24.9.1992 as per order Annexure P/3. A revision petition was again filed by Jagat Ram against that order which was dismissed in limine by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on 25.11.1992. Jagat Ram has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar (Annexure P/1) dismissing his revision petition in limine. It was alleged that the revision petition was decided without going into the facts of the case and without affording him of any opportunity of being heard.

(2.) IN the return filed by the respondent it was alleged that the complaint under Section 494 I.P.C. was dismissed on the ground that marriage with the alleged second wife could not be proved and there were no findings that the respondent was not the legally wedded wife. Rather specific findings were given while disposing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that Jogindro was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and these findings were maintained in the revision petition filed by the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner had filed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the maintenance allowance labouring under a misconception that the Court while deciding the complaint of Jogindro had given findings that her marriage with Jagat Ram was not proved. This fact was not correct. Although this assertion was made by the counsel for the petitioner in the complaint case that even first marriage of Jagat Ram with Jogindro was not proved, but there were no findings by the Court to that effect. Moreover, under Section 127 Cr.P.C. change in circumstances relate to the change in the financial condition of a party and there were no findings by any competent civil Court to the effect that Jogindro was not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Considering these circumstances, the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. While disposing of the revision petition the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar heard the petitioner and had gone through the contentions raised in the revision petition. He also carefully examined the order of the trial Court and found that it was a detailed order passed after full application of mind. There was no illegality or impropriety in the order. All the material facts were considered and thoroughly discussed. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner or without considering the relevant material. There is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.