RAJINDER SINGH Vs. PARAM JEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu has made his reference wherein recommendation is made for quashing the order dated .8.9.1996 passed by the City Judge, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu granting maintenance allowance to the respondent under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. The respondent is the duly wedded wife of the petitioner. On 18.9.1996 the respondent made an application under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu who transferred the same for trial on the same day to the City Magistrate, Jammu who issued process for summoning the petitioner herein. The petitioner resides in Mirpur Colony, Pathankot. It was alleged that on 9.10.1994 the parties were married in Jammu and thereafter they had been living as husband and wife at Pathankot. The respondent after residing there for some time got an employment in a Semi -Government Organisation on ad hoc basis in Jammu and in the month of March, 1995 the petitioner also came to reside with her. He resided for two months and thereafter left for good. He failed to provide any maintenance though he was having income of Rs. 5,000/ - p.m. The respondent claimed Rs. 2,000/ - p.m. as maintenance allowance. These allegations were made in the application and the trial Magistrate issued the process for summoning the petitioner on his Pathankot address. The same was sent to Sr. Sub Judge, Pathankot for effecting service which was accompanying the copy of the application. Presence of the petitioner herein was required in the Trial Court on 21.9.1996 i.e. within three days. On21.9.1996 summons was returned back with the alleged report that the petitioner herein had refused to acknowledge the same. A report was made of such refusal by the process server in Punjabi script which was attested by the Addl. Civil Judge, Pathankot. Alleged report of refusal by the respondent as well as the attestation of the Addl. Civil Judge, Pathankot are dated 20.9.1996. On 21.9.1996 the petitioner herein was proceeded ex -parte and the respondent herein was directed to produce the ex -parte evidence after one day i.e. on 23.9.1996. The evidence was recorded on that date and the case was posted on the next date i.e. 24.9.1996 for arguments. Again the case was adjourned for 28.9.1996 for arguments and on the same day the impugned order was passed whereby maintenance allowance in the sum of Rs. 500/ - p.m. was granted in favour of the respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner herein on 18.12.1996 challenged the order by filing the revision in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jammu who transferred the same to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the record has made this reference with the recommendation to quash the order of the -City Magistrate.

(3.) HEARD the arguments.