JAGSIR SINGH Vs. SMT. PARAMJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revision petition u/s. 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 5.1.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'the revisional Court' hereinafter) in criminal revision petition No. 118/2004, whereby the revisional Court allowed the revision petition filed by respondent-Smt. Paramjeet Kaur against the order dated 17.2.2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 97/2003, by which the trial Court awarded maintenance in favour of the respondent @ Rs. 1,000/- per month. The order awarding maintenance has been modified by the revisional Court and the revisional Court awarded maintenance in favour of the respondent @ Rs. 2,500/- per month from the date of filing of the application u/s. 125 Cr.P.C., i.e. 4.8.2003. Aggrieved by the order impugned of the revisional Court the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the respondent filed an application u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner seeking maintenance, inter alia, alleging therein that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 8.4.2003. Petitioner and his parents were not satisfied with the dowry articles and, therefore, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and was turned out from the matrimonial home and as such she has been residing with her parents. It was further stated that she has no source of income and the petitioner is a young person having 25 Bighas of irrigated land and 25 Bighas of the land owned by his father is being jointly cultivated and, therefore, from the irrigated land, the annual income of the petitioner is about Rs. 3 to 3.5 lacs. She claimed maintenance @ Rs. 2,500/- per month. A reply to the said application was filed by the petitioner, inter alia, alleging therein that whatever the dowry articles were given, they are with the respondent and petitioner and his parents have nothing to do with those articles. It was stated that a false case has been instituted by the respondent against the petitioner and his parents: It was further stated that the petitioner herself had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, not on account of demand of dowry but on the pretext that the petitioner is impotent. A Panchayat to this effect was held and the petitioner and his parents agreed that they will get the petitioner treated for his alleged impotency. However, it was further stated that if the respondent comes and live with the petitioner, the petitioner is prepared to bear all expenses. It was further stated that the parents of the respondent are having 25 Bighas of irrigated land and the respondent herself work in the agricultural field, more particularly, harvesting the cotton crop and, therefore, she hardly needs any maintenance as she is capable of maintaining herself. It was also stated that the land owned by the petitioner is not fertile one and it is not being cultivated for last four to five years. The petitioner is neither having any tube-well nor any tractor and the land is available to his father and his father has to maintain his mother and six sisters from the income from the land owned by him.

(3.) Before the trial Court, the respondent herself appeared as AW- 1 and made her statement. She also produced AW-2 Natha Singh as a witness in support of her case. The petitioner himself appeared as NAW-1.