1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2005. Date of decision: 14.09.2011. Kanchan Devi. ......Petitioner. Versus Kuldip Singh. ......Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Himmat Negi, Advocate vice Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh , Judge( Oral). This revision has been directed against the judgment dated 24.02.2005 passed by learned Presiding Officer (Additional Sessions Judge), Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala in Criminal Revision No. 1-N/X/04/02 reversing order dated 07.01.2002 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, in Criminal M.A. No. 7-IV/99 . 2. The facts, in brief, are that petitioner had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against respondent for granting maintenance. It was alleged that petitioner is a legally wedded wife of respondent and their marriage took place on 22.11.1983 as per Hindu rites, two sons were born from the wedlock. The respondent has failed to maintain the petitioner and petitioner has prayed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. 3. The petition was contested on several grounds including 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2 that the petitioner is living in adultery with one Avdesh Kumar and had planned to kill the respondent , therefore, petitioner is not entitled to maintenance. The respondent has already filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage which at that time was pending in the Court of District Judge, Hoshiarpur in which Avdesh Kumar has also been impleaded as a party. 4. The trial Court on 07.01.2002 allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- from the date of order, as interim maintenance was already allowed to the petitioner. The respondent filed revision which was allowed on 24.02.2005 and the order dated 07.01.2002 was set- aside. In revision, the revisional Court recorded a finding that petitioner has been living in adultery and set-aside the order dated 07.01.2002, hence revision by the petitioner. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur in HMA Case No. 3/FTC/99/03 dated 12.04.2005 titled as Kuldip Singh versus Kanchan Bala under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act has held that Kanchan Bala is living in adultery with Avdesh Kumar, who was respondent No.2 in the said petition. In the judgment dated 12.04.2005, it has been held that Kanchan Bala is living an adulterous life with Avdesh Kumar, as such, Kuldip Singh is entitled to get the decree of divorce and accordingly the petition filed by Kuldip Singh under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage against Kanchan Bala was allowed and a decree of divorce was passed. This contention of learned counsel for the respondent has not been contradicted by learned counsel for the petitioner. 3 6. The petitioner appeared as AW-1 and she has admitted having written letters Ex. R-1 to R-2. She has denied that on 30th March, 1994 when respondent came to his house, then the door of the house was closed and she was alone with Avdesh Kumar in the room. On knocking the room, Avdesh Kumar opened the door and ran away. She denied that she is living in adultery with Avdesh Kumar. She , however, admitted that a divorce petition was filed by respondent. 7. AW-2 Sudesh Kumari is the sister-in-law ( brother's wife) of AW-1. She has stated that respondent had left the petitioner in her house about 5 years ago and had leveled false allegations regarding her character. She has stated that respondent had given beatings to the petitioner once in her presence. No report was made in the Panchayat or with the police. 8. The respondent appeared as RW-1 and he has also examined RW-2 Balbir Singh, RW-3 Ajay Kumar, son of the petitioner and respondent. RW-3 has stated that when Avdesh Kumar had been visiting his house, Avdesh Kumar and Kanchan Bala had been locking him and his brother inside the room. Avdesh Kumar and his mother had gone to another room after closing that room also. He has also stated that his mother had been visiting the house of Avdesh Kumar and some time Avdesh Kumar had been coming to his house. He had been visiting the house daily. He has stated that his mother had threatened to kill him in case he would disclose about Avdesh Kumar to his father. 9. RW-3 continued that on 30.03.1994, he went towards his field and in his absence Avdesh Kumar came to his house and his mother locked him and his brother in one room and they went to another 4 room and after some time his father also came and enquired from him where they were and he told that they were inside the room. Thereafter , his father knocked the door and then Avdesh Kumar immediately ran away,his mother was lying nude inside the room. He denied that his father had been giving beatings to his mother under the influence of liquor. 10. In letters Ex. R-1 and Ex. R-2, the petitioner has almost admitted her guilt. This apart, now Civil Court vide judgment dated 12.04.2005 has recorded a finding that petitioner is living in adultery with Avdesh Kumar and dissolved the marriage of petitioner and respondent by a decree of divorce. The learned Presiding Officer (Additional Sessions Judge) after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record has recorded a finding of fact that petitioner is living in adultery and, therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance. The impugned judgment is dated 24.02.2005. Thereafter the Civil Court vide judgment dated 12.04.2005 has separately recording a finding that petitioner is living in adultery. In revision, re-appreciation of evidence is not possible unless it is demonstrated that the view taken from the evidence is not at all possible or the view is perverse, but this is not the situation in the present case. In view of material on record, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment. Resultantly, the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. September 14, 2011. (Krt)