SATISH Vs. SMT. YOGLATA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief and relevant facts of the present case are that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner wherein Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Kaman, district Bharatpur by order dated 6.5.2004 awarded interim maintenance to the respondent No. 1 @ Rs. 500/ - per month and to the respondent No. 2 @ Rs. 300/ - per month. Thereafter, on an application No. 59/2002 filed by the petitioner under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act Additional District Judge, Laxmangarh, district Alwar by judgment dated 8.3.2006 passed a decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner then submitted an application under Sec. 125(4), (5) read with Sec. 127(2) Cr.P.C. before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kaman enclosing therewith a certified copy of the decision dated 8.3.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Laxmangarh, district Alwar under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for cancellation of the order of interim maintenance. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Kaman dismissed the application vide order dated 2.4.2008. The petitioner filed a revision which was also dismissed by order dated 7.7.2008 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Deeg. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this misc. petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by judgment dated 8.3.2006 passed by a competent civil court namely. Additional District Judge, Laxmangarh it has become clear that the respondent No. 1 has refused to live with the petitioner without any sufficient reason and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for cancellation of the order of interim maintenance passed in favour of the respondents. He places reliance on : 1975 Cri.L.J. 137 (Raj.),, 1985 PLR 219 & : A.I.R. 1949 Cal 87.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents submits that a second revision is not maintainable. He also submits that the petitioner has thereafter filed an application under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and as such the petitioner has no intention to live with the respondent No. 1. He, therefore, prays that the petition be dismissed. He places reliance on, 2003 (2) R.C.C. 751 and : 1987 Cri. L.J. 525.