Jagdish Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Roopanwal, J.—This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8.6.01 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Moradabad in case No. 81/99, Smt. Umesha v. Jagdish case No. 81/99, u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure whereby the application of the lady u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed and she was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from 8.3.99.

I have heard Mr. A.M. Zaidi, learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the state and perused the record. Notice has been served upon other side, but none appeared for her.

It has been argued by Mr. Zaidi that another application u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure was moved by O.P. No. 2 for her maintenance and the maintenance of her son. The maintenance for the lady was refused by the court on 17.12.98 saying that she is living separately with her own volition and it was not justified on her behalf, but ignoring that fact she again moved an application, which was allowed. Mr. Zaidi argued that once the order dated 17.12.98 was operative there could be no occasion for the court below to allow the application for the maintenance of the lady in the year 2001. I do agree.

There is nothing on the record to show that after the judgment passed by the Judge, Family Court, Moradabad circumstances changed and the separate living of the lady was not due to her volition but was due to the behaviour or conduct of the husband. Thus, in a situation if the circumstances had not changed by the time the judgment dated 8.6.01 was passed there could be no propriety at all to grant maintenance to the lady by the Judge, Family Court.

Accordingly, revision is allowed. Order dated 8.6.01 is set aside.