IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-17469 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.7.2011 Ravinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Smt. Kavita ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.4.2011. He had moved a petition under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the arrangement made by the Court directing him to pay maintenance to the respondent-wife be terminated in view of the fact that she has remarried. In support of his case he has examined three witnesses of the village who stated that respondent Kavita is living with one Raj Kumar but they failed the test of credibility when they stated that they had not witnessed her marriage. As against this, the respondent also produced certain witnesses who stated that she has not remarried. The effect of the oral evidence having been off set, there is no material before this court on the basis of which it can be concluded that the respondent wife has remarried with Raj Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the Crl.Misc.No.M-17469 of 2011 (O&M) -2- report of the police officials recorded on 5.1.2005 wherein this aspect of the matter was looked into. It was contended that the report categorically stated that the marriage of Kavita had been solemnized with Raj Kumar. However, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner apparently is misleading as the report categorically rules out the marriage by stating that respondent Kavita had not solemnized any marriage but she is living with Raj Kumar. In this view of the matter, it cannot be conclusively said that Kavita has contracted a marriage with Raj Kumar so as to put to an end the arrangement of maintenance existing under the orders of the court. Merely because she is living with Raj Kumar is not suggestive of the fact that there is a marriage between them, unless it is shown that in such a relationship she is having means to support herself. Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is extracted below :- “127. Alteration in allowance.-- (1) On proof of a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving, under section 125 a monthly allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance, or ordered under the same section to pay a monthly allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance, to his wife, child, father or mother, as the case may be, the Magistrate may make such alteration, as he thinks fit, in the allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance as the case may be: Crl.Misc.No.M-17469 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Provided that if he increases the allowance, the monthly rate of five hundred rupees in the whole shall not be exceeded. (2) Where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be, vary the same accordingly. (3) Where any order has been made under section 125 in favour of a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband, the Magistrate shall, if he is satisfied that -- (a) the woman has, after the date of such divorce, remarried, cancel such order as from the date of her remarriage; (b) the woman has been divorced by her husband and that she has received, whether before or after the date of the said order, the whole of the sum which, under any customary or personal law applicable to the parties, was payable on such divorce, cancel such order, -- (i) in the case where such sum was paid before such order, from the date on which such order was made, (ii) in any other case, from the date of expiry of the period, if any, for which maintenance has been actually paid by the husband to the woman; Crl.Misc.No.M-17469 of 2011 (O&M) -4- (c) the woman has obtained a divorce from her husband and that she had voluntarily surrendered her rights to maintenance or interim maintenance, as the case may be, after her divorce, cancel the order from the date thereof. (4) At the time of making any decree for the recovery of any maintenance or dowry by any person, to whom a monthly allowance for the maintenance and interim maintenance or any of them has been ordered to be paid under section 125, the Civil Court shall take into account the sum which has been paid to, or recovered by, such person as monthly allowance for the maintenance and interim maintenance of any of them, as the case may be, in pursuance of the said order.” Thus it is not only marriage but any change in circumstances in which the power of the court under Section 127 Cr.P.C. can be invoked. But the person who does so must show that the basic fundamental factor for which maintenance is granted in the first place is sufficiently addressed in the subsequent changed scenario. No such material being there the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at a liberty to move afresh to demonstrate that the respondent is being maintained by her companion in the existing relationship. Disposed of as above. 21.7.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) dss JUDGE