IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.644 of 2003 Date of Decision 11.02.2010 Palwinder Singh ...... Petitioner(s) VERSUS Prabhjit Kaur and another ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mrs.G.K.Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): An application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by the respondents-petitioners (herein referred as 'the petitioners') being the wife and daughter of the petitioner-respondent (herein referred as 'the respondent') was partly accepted vide judgment dated 19.03.2002, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala vide which the respondent was ordered to pay maintenance to petitioner No.2- Arvinder Kaur @ Rs.300/- per month from the date of application whereas the application of Prabhjit Kaur-petitioner No.1 was dismissed. Then the petitioners preferred revision petition against the aforesaid order wherein the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide judgment dated 22.02.2003, awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs.500/- per month in favour of petitioner No.1 and enhanced the maintenance @ Rs.600/- per month to petitioner No.2. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent has preferred this revision petition. Admittedly, the petitioners Prabhjit Kaur and Arvinder Kaur are the wife and daughter of the respondent respectively. No divorce, has so far, taken place between the parties. The allegations, set up by the petitioner are that she was harassed, maltreated and turned out of the house of the respondent in the month of March, 1995, when she was pregnant. Criminal Revision No.644 of 2003 -2- Learned counsel for the respondent has stressed much over the agreement Ex.R1 by stating that vide said agreement they are living separately by mutual consent. However, the agreement Ex.R1 reveals that the parties are living separately because of incompatibility between them under compulsion, no possibility of their living together was in the offing and they had decided to get the divorce. However, neither the divorce was applied for by either of the parties nor the parties have applied for divorce by mutual consent. The words “mutual consent” as recorded under sub Section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. connote “voluntarily” as desired by both of them and not “forced by the circumstances”. Here in the case, the parties entered into the agreement for living separately as forced by the circumstances that they could not live together due to incompatibility between them and as also that she was turned out of the house after giving the beatings. As such, this agreement under compulsion between the parties could be defined as “mutual consent” as to bring within the purview of sub Section (4) of 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On scrutiny of the impugned order, it transpires that the lower revisional Court dealt with all the issues elaborately and reached the conclusion that if the wife, who is living separately under compulsive circumstances through an agreement, certainly could not be debarred for seeking maintenance. No dissenting opinion could be formed by this Court as to deprive the petitioners from maintenance. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 11.02.2010 mamta-II