Renu (Smt) v. Hiralal @ Harish : 2002 Cri.L.J. 2599 : 2002 (2) Crimes 355 : 2002 (2) DMC 450 : 2002 (2) HLR 597 : 2002 (3) MPHT 340 : 2002 (2) Mar. L.J. 213 : (2002) 2 JabLJ 117 : (2002) 3 MPLJ 320 : 2002 (4) RCR (Cri) 64 : 2002 LRC Online 72 (MP)
Section 125-Interim maintenance-Order granting interim maintenance set aside by sessions court-Revision-Wife of her own voluntarily residing separately-husband has filed sufficient material i.e., decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights, thereafter, filed execution proceedings and in all the proceedings, the wife did not appear and also did not allege that the decree was obtained by playing fraud-before deciding the application for grant of interim maintenance, the non-applicant/husband also made a serious and conscious effort for reconciliation and keeping and maintaining the wife, but she has denied flatly as mentioned above without assigning any reason-aside the order of grant of interim maintenance in favour of the wife-No illegality or perversity in the impugned order-Petition dismissed.
Held : The ratio decided in the case of Babulal v. Sunita, 1987 Cri.L.J 525 (supra) has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case, the question was involved whether after passing of ex parte judgment and decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights in favour of the husband, the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance filed by the wife was maintainable before the Trial Court or not. It was a case relating to the grant of interim maintenance in favour of the wife. More or less, the same is the situation in other cases relied upon by this Court in Babulal v. Sunita (supra) case. In the present case, at this stage, the Trial Court was required to see the prima facie case for grant of interim maintenance if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself. The husband has filed sufficient material i.e., decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights, thereafter, filed execution proceedings and in all the proceedings, the wife did not appear and also did not allege that the decree was obtained by playing fraud. Apart from this, before deciding the application for grant of interim maintenance, the non-applicant/husband also made a serious and conscious effort for reconciliation and keeping and maintaining the wife, but she has denied flatly as mentioned above without assigning any reason. Suffice it to say that the Revisional Court has not committed any error of law and fact while setting-aside the order of grant of interim maintenance in favour of the wife in the facts and circumstances of the case and this Court does not find any such illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction.