IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 14 of 2011 Decided of decision: 23.11.2011 Dile Ram ….. Petitioner. Vs. Smt.Purva …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhupender Ahuja, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Sat Parkash, Advocate vice Mr. Naveen K.Bhardwaj,Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge.(Oral) This petition has been filed by the husband against the judgment dated 25.8.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu in Criminal Revision No. 3/ 2009 affirming the order dated 2.12.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu in Cr. M.A No. 251-IV of 2006. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondent had filed the petition under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance against the petitioner. It has been stated in the petitioner that the respondent married to petitioner about nine years back, from the wed-lock three daughters were born, who are living with the petitioner. It has been stated that after two years of the marriage the petitioner started harassing, maltreating the respondent Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… and was also beaten by the petitioner. The petitioner leveled false allegations against the respondent that she was having illicit relations. In the year 2005 the respondent was turn out of matrimonial home. The respondent has no source of income and is not able to maintain herself. The petitioner is an ex-service man, in addition the petitioner has sufficient landed property in village Jhiri where he is growing fruits and vegetables and earning more than rupees one lac per annum He can easily pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The petition was contested by the petitioner by taking preliminary objections of suppression of material facts and of maintainability. On merits, the respondent did not dispute that respondent is his wife. He denied that he maltreated the respondent and gave beatings to her. He denied that respondent was turned out of matrimonial home. He has stated that the respondent was in the habit of leaving his society without any reason. The respondent has no love and affection for her daughters who are living with the petitioner. The respondent is having sufficient income as she has landed property in Village Deori and village Teel. He stated that his earning is Rs. 1900/- and having no immovable property in his name. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, allowed the petition on 2.12.2008 and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month from the date of filing of the petition which was filed on 2.8.2006. It has been stated that interim maintenance was awarded to the respondent, therefore, amount of interim maintenance shall be adjusted in the amount of monthly maintenance. …3… 4. The petitioner filed revision against the order dated 2.12.2008, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 25.8.2010. The judgment dated 25.8.2010 has been assailed in the present petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the grounds of revision before the learned Sessions Judge the petitioner had stated that he instituted a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights against respondent which was allowed in favour of the petitioner. It has been submitted that even the record of Civil Petition No.1-III/2007 decided on 12.1.2009 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1,Mandi was before the learned Sessions Judge but judgment dated 12,1,2009 has not at all been considered by the learned Sessions Judge while deciding the revision. This has not been disputed by the learned counsel on the other side. 6. The record of Civil Petition No.1-III/2007 has been perused. The perusal of the judgment dated 12.1.2009 indicates that the petitioner had filed the petition against respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for decree and restitution of conjugal rights. This petition was contested by the respondent. In the judgment 12.1.2019 there were two issues; (1) regarding the entitlement of the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights (2) whether the respondent is maltreated by the petitioner. 7. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, Mandi decided aforesaid both issues in favour of the petitioner on …4… 12.1.2009 and the petition was allowed and decree of restitution of conjugal rights has been passed in favour of the petitioner directing the respondents to join the company of petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge has not considered the implication of judgment dated 12.1.2009 in the impugned judgment . In these circumstances, judgment dated 25.8.2010 is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Judgment dated 25.8.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No.3/2009 is set aside. The case is remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu with a direction to decide the revision afresh after considering the judgment dated 12.1.2009 in Criminal Revision No. 3/2009 and after giving opportunity to the parties in accordance with law. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu on 12.12.2011. The records be also sent back to the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu so as to reach before the date fixed. The learned Sessions Judge, Kullu is directed to decide the revision expeditiously. November 23, 2010 (Kuldip Singh), (Rita) Judge.