DAULAT RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a Criminal Misc. Application under section 482, Code Criminal Procedure and under challenge is the order dated 12th June 1987 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Hanumangarh who dismissed the revision filed before him against the petitioner. The order of the learned M.O.M. Sangaria under which the learned Magistrate in proceeding under section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure initiated on the application of Smt. Rukma Devi who is admittedly wife of the petitioner, ordered for payment of Rs. 300.00 per month from the date of the order i.e. 7th May, 1987 and from the date of the application has been applied.

(2.) In assailing the aforesaid judgments of both the Courts below; the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a suit petition has been filed by one Shri Mukh Ram son of the petitioner through her mother Smt. Rukma Devi non-petitioner No. 2 as next friend and guardian and in that suit, a compromise was arrived at and under the compromise Ex.D. dated 5th July, 1975 9 bighas of land was given and equal share to the respondent No. 2 and her son Shri Mukh Ram. Thus, she was already having her source of income to maintain herself and, therefore, she was not enticled for any maintenance.

(3.) In my opinion, the bare reading of Ex.D. 1 dated 5th July, 76 will show that a suit for partition has been filed by Mukh Ram son of the petitioner through her mother as next friend and guardian and in that, a compromise was arrived at. The suit was not filed for maintenance by Non-petitioner No. 2 nor it appears from the perusal of the Ex.D. 1 that rest of the 9 Bighas of land was given to the petitioner in leiu of her maintenance. It can, therefore be said that the learned Courts below have rightly held that N.P. No. 2 had not sufficient to support herself and, therefore, taking the income of the petitioner and the means state counsel for the petitioner has not challenged quantum of maintenance per month which the learned lower Court awarded to the non-petitioner No. 2. It is not a case where any interference under section 482, Code Criminal Procedure is called for.