IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.40 of 2003. Date of decision: 08.03.2010. Smt.Kewla Devi … … Petitioner Versus Tulsi Ram … … Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Rajpal Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.N.S. Chandel, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This revision petition has been preferred by the wife against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge accepting the revision petition instituted by the husband against the order of the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Chopal granting maintenance to the petitioner herein to the extent of Rs.400/- per month. The learned trial Court on appraisal of the evidence before it, accepted the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as the `Code’) instituted by the petitioner herein. The husband approached the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 learned Sessions Judge challenging the order. While accepting the petition, the learned Court holds that under Section 125(4) of the Code, the husband has been able to make out a case on the record that the wife had intentionally refused to live with the husband. He fortifies this finding from an earlier petition under Section 125 of the Code filed by the wife which has been rejected by the learned Magistrate. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The learned Sessions Judge has completely ignored the fact that the respondent himself admits in his evidence that he has remarried after the first petition under Section 125 of the Code filed by the wife was dismissed and from this marriage he has two children. In these circumstances, it was the bounden duty of the learned Court below to have considered the changed circumstances. As the respondent has remarried, without annulling the first marriage, the findings that the petitioner has withdrawn intentionally cannot be sustained. In these circumstances, the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge is quashed and set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. With this modification, the petitioner shall be entitled for maintenance at the rate granted by the 3 learned Magistrate from 1.1.2010. No order as to costs. March 8, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.