JAGDISH CHANDRA Vs. HEMLATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by Shri Jagdish Chandra against the order dated 4. 8. 84 passed by the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Sirohi rejecting his objections to the notice issued to him u/s 125 (3) Cr. P. C. for the enforcement of the maintenance awarded to the non-petitioner for a period from 5. 4. 83 to 5. 9 83.

(2.) TWO separate applications were filed by Smt. Hemlata for the recovery of the maintenance awarded to her u/s l25 (l)Cr. P. C. The first was for the period 5. 4. 83 to 5. 5. 83 and the second for the period 6. 5. 83 to 5. 9. 83. Notices of these applications were issued to the present petitioner to file his replies to both of them. The replies were identical and raised three grounds about sufficient cause for not complying with the order u/s 125 (1) Cr. P. C. The first ground was that the present petitioner was ready and willing to maintain Smt. Hemlata if she came and stayed with him, (ii) that the parties were living separate by mutual consent; and (iii) that the non-petitioner Smt. Hemlata was getting a salary of Rs. 600/- p. m. as she was serving as a teacher. The non-petitioner Smt. Hemlata denied all these grounds.

(3.) SO far as the second ground goes, the learned Magistrate does not appear to have given any clear finding about it but as a corollary of the first ground, the second ground does not require any further enquiry in asmuch as it has not been alleged by the present petitioner that after the order u/s 125 (1) Cr. P. C had been passed, the alleged mutual consent had been arrived at for living separately. On the other hand, from the very trend of the reply, it appears that the case of the petitioner was that from the very beginning the non-petitioner was living separate by mutual consent. As a matter of fact, if the case of the present petitioner was that after the order u/s 125 Cr. P. C. had been passed, there was a mutual agreement between the parties, to live separate then he should have given a specific date on which such an agreement had been arrived at and in the absence of such an allegation, no further enquiry in this respect also called for.