IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 157 of 2004. Decided on November 11, 2010. Ram Pal …Petitioner. Versus Sunita Devi ..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner Sh. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent Mr. Banbhushan Singh, Advocate, vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of learned Sessions Judge, whereby, accepting the revision filed by respondent Sunita Devi, against the order dated 27.3.2002, by which her petition for grant of maintenance, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. had been dismissed by the trial Magistrate, maintenance allowance @ Rs.500/- per month, has been granted. 3. Respondent filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking monthly maintenance allowance. Petition was contested by the present petitioner on the ground that Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondent had left the matrimonial home, without any reasonable or justifiable cause, and also threatened to commit suicide. In revision, filed by the respondent in Sessions Court, her petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., has been allowed and she has been awarded maintenance allowance @ Rs.500/- per month. 4. It is submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that learned Sessions Court has not appreciated the evidence correctly, while reversing the finding of the learned trial Magistrate, that respondent had left the matrimonial home, without any excuse or sufficient cause. 5. Learned Magistrate placed reliance upon two writings Exts. RW-1/A and RW-1/B to hold that the respondent had been living separate from the revision petitioner, without any sufficient reason. Learned Sessions Court has excluded these writings from consideration, with the observation that the same were not put to the respondent, when she was in the witness box. Reasoning, given by the Sessions Court, is bad for two reasons. First, even though the writings, as such, were not shown to the respondent, when she was in the witness box, it was specifically suggested to her, that reports had been made to the Panchayat by the present petitioner that she had not been living with him, without any cause and on the intervention of Panchayat, compromises were effected and reduced into writing. The writings are in the nature of these compromises. Secondly the writings had been proved by the petitioner, who appeared as 3 RW-1 and two other witnesses, namely RW-2 Jagiri Ram and RW- 3 Gurdas Ram, who attested the writings. RW-3 Gurdas Ram also acted as Panch to get one of the compromises effected. No suggestion was put to these witnesses that the writings were not prepared or the Panchayat had not intervened, as mentioned in these writings. 6. Second writing Ex.RW-1/B contains an admission by the respondent that she had been leaving her husband’s house and residing with her parents, without any sufficient cause. Not only this, she undertook before the Panchayat that she would stay with the petitioner, for a period of one year continuously, but she again left her matrimonial house, just within three months of that writing, per her own deposition as AW-1. 7. In view of the above stated position, revision petition is allowed, impugned order of Sessions Court, granting maintenance to the respondent, is set aside and that of the trial Magistrate, dismissing respondent’s petition, restored. 8. Revision petition is disposed of. November 11, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh) Judge.