GOPALBHAI LALBHAI RANA Vs. JIVIBEN GOPALBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -husband has sought to challenge the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Criminal Revision Application No. 99 of 1984 on the ground that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharuch whereby he had held that the wife's application is barred by principle of estoppel, should be restored. It appears that the spouses were married some 20 years back. Two children were born from the wedlock. The opponent -wife filed maintenance application against the petitioner -husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the year 1970 on the ground of ill -treatment. That application was rejected and that was never challenged further. Hence granting of maintenance on the ground of wife being entitled to live separately on account of ill -treatment, is no longer resintegra. That decision has become final. Subsequently also the wife seems to have filed other petitions. One such petition was compromised and the children were granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/ -. Thereafter further development took place. The wife filed petition for judicial separation which was granted, husband filed petition for divorce which was rejected and the wife has now filed another application for maintenance which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed on the ground that it is barred by estoppel. The learned Sessions Judge in revision came to the conclusion that the petition was not such which could have been thrown out on the ground of issue of estoppel and he, therefore, remanded the matter. It is this order which is now sought to be challenged before this court by way of present petition.

(2.) MR . Surti the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner -husband drew my attention to the two decisions reported in Lalaram v. Sakhi Devi, AIR 196S Manipur 49 and Vithalrao v. Ratna Prabha, 78 Crl. L.J. 1406. The ratio of these two decisions is to the effect that if the previous petition of the wife for maintenance has been rejected, then allowing the wife to agitate the same ground over and over again would be barred by principles analogous to res -judicata and the principle of estoppel would operate in favour of the husband. However, in the instant case it appears that subsequent to the rejection of the wife's petition there have been changed circumstances and that is why the learned Sessions Judge was constrained to remand the matter. I feel that in Revision Application of the present nature there is hardly any scope for interfering with the decision of the learned Sessions Judge who has only remanded the matter by an order which appears to be convincing and well -reasoned. In that view of the matter none of the decisions relied upon by Mr. Surti will be of any avail to the petitioner -husband. The petition, therefore, stands rejected. Rule discharged. Interim -relief is vacated. Revision dismissed.