KEWLA DEVI Vs. TULSI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred by the wife against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge accepting the revision petition instituted by the husband against the order of the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Chopal granting maintenance to the petitioner herein to the extent of Rs.400/- per month.

(2.) The learned trial Court on appraisal of the evidence before it, accepted the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as the `Code') instituted by the petitioner herein. The husband approached the learned Sessions Judge challenging the order. While accepting the petition, the learned Court holds that under Section 125(4) of the Code, the husband has been able to make out a case on the record that the wife had intentionally refused to live with the husband. He fortifies this finding from an earlier petition under Section 125 of the Code filed by the wife which has been rejected by the learned Magistrate. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge has completely ignored the fact that the respondent himself admits in his evidence that he has remarried after the first petition under Section 125 of the Code filed by the wife was dismissed and from this marriage he has two children. In these circumstances, it was the bounden duty of the learned Court below to have considered the changed circumstances. As the respondent has remarried, without annulling the first marriage, the findings that the petitioner has withdrawn intentionally cannot be sustained.