MANGAT RAM Vs. SHANO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON an application filed by the respondents under Sec 433 Cr.P.C, the trial court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, vide his order dated 23.12.1989, directed the payment of maintenance allowance to the respondents, the wife and child of the petitioner, @ Rs.300 per month (Rs.209 for wife and Rs.100 for child). Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner herein filed a revision petition before the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu, who, vide the order impugned in this petition, dismissed the same.

(2.) IT is submitted that the orders of the courts below being contrary to law and facts are required to be set aside, It is further submitted that during the pendency of the maintenance proceedings, a decree u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was passed on the basis of a compromise between the husband and wife, on 28.9.1988, It is contended that as a consequence of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent is alleged to have forgot and swept the bitterness of differences and the cause of action, if any, against the petitioner came to an end. The trial court committed a mistake of law by not considering the fact of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights and the revisional court below returned a finding on this behalf contrary to the settled law. It is contended that the decree of restitution of conjugal rights was acted upon and respondent No.1 started living with the petitioner without withdrawing the proceedings under Sec. 488 Cr. P. C. It is submitted that the respondent -child is also not entitled to the maintenance as she had been taken by the wife without the consent of the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. No one has appeared for the respondents despite service.