CRM No. M-49212 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-49212 of 2007 Date of decision:- 11.11.2010 Gurjant Singh ......Petitioner Vs Lovepreet Kaur ......Respondent CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Present: Mr. Jatin Salwan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Suresh Goyal, Advocate, for the respondent. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, J (ORAL) Heard. The petitioner who is the husband of one Lovepreet Kaur @ Raj Kaur has filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against an order dated 06.07.2007 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala in exercise of revisional powers has affirmed the order dated 10.08.2006 granting maintenance in favour of the respondent- wife by the learned trial Court. By the aforesaid orders the respondent-wife has been granted maintenance @ Rs. 1500/- per month alongwith litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 2,000/-. Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. bars a second revision by the same party. The petitioner cannot overcome the aforesaid statutory bar by merely describing the application to be CRM No. M-49212 of 2007 2 one under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That apart, the only contention on merits that has been advanced is that in the year 2003 the respondent-wife has been convicted of an offence under Section 302 IPC and she is presently in custody. As all her needs are being taken care of by the State it is submitted that the order of maintenance may be interfered with. The conviction of a person in the criminal case and his/her detention in custody does not obliterate the legal rights of such a citizen. Apart from the basic needs that are provided by the State to persons in custody such persons would have other needs which they are entitled to satisfy on the basis of the rights conferred to them by law including the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court, therefore, finds no merit whatsoever in this application. It is accordingly dismissed, however without any order as to cost. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent may have re-married while on parole or an interim bail, as may be. If that be so, it will always be open for the petitioner to invoke the provisions of Section 127 Cr.P.C., if so advised. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. shall stand disposed of in the above terms. (RANJAN GOGOI) 11.11.2010 JUDGE Amodh