RAJ RANI Vs. NIRANJAN DASS MANOCHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, filed by Smt. Raj Rani praying therein that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot dated 222.1984, be quashed.

(2.) The facts which gave rise to this petition are that Smt. Raj Rani filed a petition under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, against her husband Niranjan Dass respondent for the grant of maintenance. The trial Court allowed the petition and granted, Rs. 200/- 81 monthly maintenance to the petitioner. Niranjan Dass went up in revision. The learned Additional Session Judge vide his impugned order accepted the revision and came to a finding that Smt. Raj Rani had sufficient means and thus was not entitled to maintenance. In the circumstances remedy of revision was available to Smt. Raj Rani. She should have filed a revision in this Court against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. So I treat this petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code as revision and proceed to decide the matter.

(3.) With the help of the counsel for the parties, I have gone through the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot which is detailed and elaborate one. On the basis of admissions made by Smt. Raj Rani in her statement which is Exhibit R-3, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to a right conclusion that she had sufficient means to maintain herself and thus was not entitled to any grant of maintenance under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. This is a finding of fact reached at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of documentary evidence. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in it. Consequently, I find no ground to interfere in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.