SAROJ ARORA Vs. JYOTI BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant criminal revision petition has been filed by Smt. Saroj Arora against the order dated 7.4.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali in Cr. Revision Petition No. 19/2011 by which the revisional court set aside the order dated 4.4.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sumerpur, District Pali in Cr. Misc. Case No. 490/2010 by which the interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/ - was allowed to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of revisional court is totally erroneous because in the said revision petition the order of interim maintenance was challenged and the learned revisional court discussed the entire evidence as if the court was deciding the criminal case finally. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner the scope of revisional court's jurisdiction is very limited but the revisional court assessed the entire facts stated in the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner and reply filed by the non -petitioner against the application for maintenance. While attacking upon the order impugned dated 7.4.2012 it is submitted that the revisional court has committed a gross error while giving finding after assessment of fact that the petitioner -applicant was earlier married with one Ashok Kumar and later on she was living in relation with the respondent Jyoti Babu and while living with him she gave birth to son Chirag. Meaning thereby, while deciding the revision petition against the order of interim maintenance, the revisional court finally gave verdict that petitioner is legally wedded wife of non -petitioner Jyoti Babu.

(2.) AS per the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner the finding given by the revisional court is not sustainable in law because the revisional court was hearing revision petition against the order of interim maintenance not the final judgment of maintenance by the learned trial court, which is to be passed after recording evidence, therefore, the order may be quashed.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties I have perused the application filed by the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sumerpur under Section 125 Cr.P.C., so also, the application for interim maintenance and reply to the application for interim maintenance. In the reply filed by the respondent to the application for interim maintenance, he has categorically stated in para No. 3 that -