LADHU RAM Vs. SMT. RUKRAA DEVI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the order of ti c learned Judicial Magistrate, Shri Ganganagar dated 20th February. 1975, whereby he awarded maintenance allowance of Rs. 250.00 per month to the non-Petitioner Smt Ruknta Devi.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, relevant for the disposal of this revision petition, are that the applicant was married to Smt-Rukma Devi hbout 40 years back. Out of this wedlock, two daughters were born to Smt. Rukma Devi, But, as no son was born, the applicant married a second wife Smt. Dakha. Smt. Rukma Devi continued to live with the applicant even after his marriage with Smt. Dakha for some time and, then she left living with the petitioner, and stated living with her parents. Smt. Rukma Devi then moved an application under Sec. 488, Cr. P.C. (Old) on 16-5-1959, which was allowed and a maintenance allowance of Rs. 200.00 per month was fixed Later on, the petitioner obtained a decree of divorce against Smt. Rukma Devi on 4-12-1971. He then applied for cancellation of the order of maintenance on the ground of divorce. The order regarding the maintenance allowance was, therefore, cancelled on 19-2-1973. After coming into force of the New Criminal Procedure Code, Rukma Devi moved an application under Sec. 125, Cr. P.C. on 25-6-1974. This application was allowed on 20-2-1975, and a maintenance allowance of Rs. 250.00 per month was ordered to be paid by the petitioner to Smt. Rukma Devi. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner, it was contained that the learned Magistrate erred in law in entertaining a second application for grant of maintenance allowance when the previous order of grant of maintenance was annulled on 19-2-1973. It was also contended that the New Criminal Procedure has no retrospective applicability, and the rights of the parties, which were determined under the Old Criminal Procedure Code, cannot now be reopened. It was also contended that the principle of res judicata would also apply, in substance, to this case, and the second application by Smt. Rukma Devi should not have been entertained at all. It was also contended that the provisions of Sec. 125, Crimial P.C. apply only to customary divorces, and not to the divorces secured through judicial proceedings. The learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on Sec. 6 (e) of the General Clauses Act, and contended that all rights and liabilities, which had accrued under the old Criminal Procedure Code, could be decided, continued and determined only in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and the provisions of the New Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked or availed of.