CRR NO. 2082 OF 2002 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR NO. 2082 OF 2002 (O&M) DECIDED ON : 03.12.2010 Sarbjit Kaur and another ...Petitioners versus Jaswinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : None for the parties. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) This is a revision petition against the order dated 28.08.2002 passed by Shri Manjinder Singh, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri, vide which the application preferred by Sarbjit Kaur w/o Jaswinder Singh under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Was accepted in respect of minor but was declined regarding grant of maintenance to Sarbjit Kaur. Mr. B. S. Bhasaur, Advocate, representing the petitioners has since expired. Thereafter, notices to the petitioners were issued for 14.10.2010. On that date, registered notice was not received back and fresh notice was ordered to be issued. Today report has been received that registered notice has been received back with the report of refusal. It so seems that none is interested in pursuing the present revision petition. CRR NO. 2082 OF 2002 (O&M) -2- Since it is a revision petition, it cannot be dismissed in default and has to be decided on merits. The moot point involved in the present petition is whether the wife is entitled to maintenance inspite of grant of decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the husband. There is a decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act passed in favour of Jaswinder Singh-respondent which has not been complied with by the petitioner-Sarbjit Kaur. The trial Court has passed the impugned judgment relying upon the authority “Ravi Kumar vs. Santosh Kumari” 1997 (3) RCR 3 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. In the said Ruling, it has been observed by the Division Bench that wife is not entitled to maintenance where there is contested decree in favour of the husband. So, I have no other option except to rely upon the said Division Bench authority. In view of authority Ravi Kumar's case (supra), no ground for interference is made out by this Court. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed. DECEMBER 03, 2010 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE