BINDU DEVI & ANOTHER Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Smt. Bindu Devi instituted an application cast under the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned, wherein she claimed maintenance from the respondent/husband herein, both for herself and for her minor son. The application preferred by the petitioner herein before the learned Magistrate concerned, stood allowed by the Magistrate concerned, whereby he pronounced a direction upon the respondent/husband, to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- per mensem to the applicant and Rs. 500/- per mensem to co-applicant No.2. A direction was also rendered of the aforesaid liabilities arising from the date of petition. The respondent/husband being aggrieved therefrom instituted a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kangra at Dharmshala. The latter under the impugned order, proceeded to allow the revision petition, whereby he set aside the order recorded upon the apposite application by the learned Magistrate concerned. The wife/petitioner herein is aggrieved therefrom, hence has proceeded to institute the instant petition before this Court.

(2.) The reasoning, as assigned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for disallowing the apposite application, is grooved in the factum of sums of money borne in the Kisan Vikas Patras, preeminently with theirs' standing uncontrovertedly purchased by the respondent/husband herein, in, the names of both the applicants', hence, being sufficient for maintaining both the applicants. The aforesaid reasoning would hold strength, only upon apposite evidence(s) making graphic unfoldments qua the petitioner herein holding possession of Kisan Vikas Patras. The learned trial Magistrate had proceeded to refute all the disaffirmative thereto arguments anchored upon the aforesaid facet, the reason for his refuting the arguments of the respondent qua the petitioner herein holding possession, of Kisan Vikas Patras were anviled upon a "Samjhota" existing on file of learned trial Magistrate, with vivid underscoring therein qua possession of Kisan Vikas Patras being handed over by the petitioner herein to her husband. The respondent/ husband in his testification comprised in his cross-examination, has not therein denied the apt occurrence or the validity of execution of "Samjhota" inter-se him and the petitioner herein. However, dehors the said admission of the respondent herein qua occurrence and valid execution of a "Samjhota" inter-se him and his wife also with recital(s) occurring therein, of, possession of Kisan Vikas Patras being handed over by the petitioner herein to him, yet, the learned counsel for the respondent herein has contended, that with the petitioner herein in her cross-examination, denying the existence of any compromise inter-se her and the respondent, thereupon the trite fact occurring in the "Samjhota", of, hers handing over the Kisan Vikas Patras to the respondent also perse standing belied. He thereupon contends that the impugned verdict warrants reverence. However, the aforesaid submission is fallacious, especially when lack of any denial(s) in respect thereto, were, enjoined to emanate not from the petitioner herein rather, was to emanate from the respondent herein, whereas, with the respondent admitting its execution also when he for falsifying all the apposite recitals borne therein, omitted to lead into the witness box, the Investigating Officer concerned of the Police Station, thereupon his relevant omission(s), render all the recitals borne therein to hold veracity. In sequel, the reasoning(s) assigned by the learned trial Magistrate for imputing credence, to the "Samjhota", was amenable for vindication by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereas with the latter, for, untenable reason(s) disimputing credence thereto, has hence committed a grave illegality besides impropriety. Predominantly also with the respondent herein, in the grounds of the apposite criminal revision petition preferred by him before the learned Revisional Court, omitting to therein make any apt ventilations, in respect of validity of execution of "Samjhota" inter-se him and his wife also in respect of authenticity(s) thereof on all facets, thereupon an inference is bolstered, of, his admitting the validity of its execution besides his also admitting the truth of all recitals borne therein, whereupon he now is stopped, to, on any ground hence assail it.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent herein has made a reference to the provisions occurring in sub-sections 4 and 5 of Section 125 Cr.P.C. provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-