PREM SINGH Vs. KRISHNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant revision petition challenging order dtd. 14/9/2018 and 20/1/2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kalakote in a petition filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioner under Sec. 488 of the J&K Cr.P.C. Vide impugned order dtd. 30/4/2019 an amount of Rs.4000.00 per month has been awarded as maintenance in favour of respondent No.1 and against the petitioner whereas vide impugned order dtd. 20/1/2020 learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kalakote (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Magistrate') has directed attachment of the movable property of the petitioner.

(2.) It appears that respondent No. 1 filed a petition under Sec. 488 of the J&K Cr.P.C against the petitioner herein before the learned trial Magistrate seeking maintenance in her favour. In the said petition, respondent No.1 claimed that she is legally wedded wife of petitioner herein with whom she had entered into wedlock in the year 1970. It was further averred by respondent No.1 in her petition that out of the said wedlock one child was born and that relations between the parties remained cordial for about 12 years. However, thereafter the petitioner started harassing respondent No.1 and made demands of dowry from her. It has been averred that in the year 1980, the petitioner contracted second marriage without obtaining divorce from respondent No.1, who was turned out of her matrimonial home. On account of this, respondent No.1, who is a non-earning person, was unable to maintain herself. She approached the petitioner a number of times and sought maintenance from him but without any success. This resulted in filing of the petition under Sec. 488 of the J&K Cr.P.C before the learned trial Magistrate.

(3.) It appears that summons were issued to the petitioner and the same were served upon him but he chose not to appear before the learned trial Magistrate. As a consequence of this, on 3/8/2018, the learned trial Magistrate decided to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner and directed respondent No.1 to lead evidence in ex-parte.