IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M-34295 of 2008 Date of decision : 10.07.2009 Shanti Devi and another ....Petitioners V/s Radha Rani and another ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajeev Godara, Advocate for the respondents. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner No 1 Shanti Devi is the mother in law of the Radha Rani (respondent No. 1) who preferred the petition for maintenance. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are sons of petitioner No. 1. According to the counsel, husband of Radha Rani died. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved thereafter against the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Radha Rani cannot claim the maintenance from the mother and brothers of the deceased husband i.e. the petitioners, as the would lie only against her husband. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel Vs. Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel and others 2008(2) RCR(Crl) 699 in support of his contention. Learned counsel submits that the legal proposition was not correctly appreciated by the court below. He, therefore, prays that impugned order be set-aside and the case be remanded back to the court below for decision afresh. Crl. Misc No. M-34295 of 2008 -2- This prayer is not opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Since both the counsels are agreed that the matter needs fresh consideration as certain judgments including the one in Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel (supra) could not be cited before the court below, this petition is allowed and order dated 31.10.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa is set-aside. The court shall consider the matter afresh and take decision thereon after considering the pleas of both the parties. Parties are directed to remain present before the said Court on 03.08.2009. 10.07.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE