SATENDRA KAUR Vs. MANJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner wife was allowed by the trial Court vide order dtd. 30/7/2002 and a maintenance of Rs.1,250.00 per month was ordered to be paid to the petitioner-wife. Aggrieved by the above order passed by the trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the respondent-husband. The appellate Court, while allowing the appeal vide order dtd. 29/3/2003, set aside the order passed by the trial Court. The main ground of allowing the appeal has been that the petitioner-wife, without any sufficient cause, was living separately from the respondent-husband.

(2.) After hearing counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record and also both the orders passed by the Courts below.

(3.) There is no dispute that on a complaint been filed by the petitioner-wife, the respondent-husband was convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Sec. 498A I.P.C. Though on an appeal preferred by the respondent-husband, the order of conviction resulted into the order of acquittal. It has also come on record that after conviction the respondent-husband also filed a petition for divorce against the petitioner-wife. Though the same allowed to be dismissed for non-prosecution by the respondent-husband. There is no evidence on behalf of the respondent-husband in rebuttal to the evidence led by the petitioner-wife before the trial Court.