RAVINDRA SINGH Vs. AMARJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner while challenging the order dated 13.06.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in a revision petition, whereby the revisional court has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.02.2012 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) on an application filed by the respondents under section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2000/ - to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 1000/ - to respondent No. 2 per month.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of the orders passed by both the courts below while arguing that earlier the petitioner filed an application under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955' hereinafter) and the same was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 28.08.2002 and the respondent No. 1 was directed to live with the petitioner. However, despite the said order passed in the proceedings under section 9 of the Act of 1955, the respondent No. 1 refused to live with the petitioner and, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance under the provisions of section 125 Cr.P.C.. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Chandu (Smt) & Ors. v. Shobha Lal, Cr.L.R., 2013(1) (Raj.) 511.

(3.) THE respondent No. 1, in her statement, recorded before the trial court in the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C., has stated that pursuant to the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur in the proceedings under section 9 of the Act of 1955, she lived with the petitioner for some days but the petitioner again threw her out from the house after beating her. She has specifically denied that she has refused to live with her husband after the courts orders.