MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, J. - (1.) THIS position under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure at the instance of the aggrieved husband has arisen in these circumstances.
(2.) SURJIT Kaur, the respondent herein, filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner, claiming maintenance for herself an her minor children. That application as made on 13.2.1982. The husband-petitioner took the plea that Surjit Kaur was living in adultery with one Bhajan Singh. That plea did not find favour with the trial Magistrate, maintenance was granted in her favour and the minor children on 27.5.1983. A revision petition against that order was dismissed by the Court of Session. Before hand, on 15.6.1983, the petitioner moved the Court of Magistrate under section 125(5) of the Code of Criminal procedure seeking cancellation of the maintenance order. In the meantime, he obtained a decree of divorce from the Court of the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, on 1.11.1983 in which the finding came that Surjit Kaur, the wife, was living with Bhajan Singh at village Mehat and the allegations of the petitioner that the wife was living in adultery with Bhajan Singh remained uncontroverted. In this view of the matter, the learned Magistrate on 21.1.1985 partially accepted the petition of the husband so as to cancel the maintenance order relating to the wife but dismissed the claim of the petitioner, which related to the minor children. Cross revision were filed by the respective parties before the Court of Sessions. The petition of the wife was rejected. The husband withdrew has revisions petition regarding the minor children but maintained that the order of cancellation of the maintenance order as regards the wife should take effect from the date of the application, i.e., from 15.6.1983 when he had moved for the purpose. Since the learned Magistrate was silent in his order on this point, it was taken that the maintenance order would operate from 21.1.1985 and this state was left uninterfered with by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, which has given rise to this petition. If that order had been purely discretionary, it would have required no interference. But here, as it occurs to me, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Order is illegible. On 15.6.1983 when the application was made, the allegation of the husband for alteration of the order under section 125(5) of the Code of Criminal procedure was to be proved by evidence. He came armed with the order of the Divorce Court. Only on 1.11.1983, from which the conduct of the wife disentitling her maintenance stood clearly spelled out. The husband at least was entitled with effect from that date to have the maintenance order cancelled if not earlier. Cancelling the maintenance order with effect from 21.1.1985 is totally illogical. This, as is clear, has led to failure of justice. The interests of justice would require that this error be rectified. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.7.1985 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala is modified to the extent that the maintenance order in favour of the wife shall stand cancelled with effect from 1.11.1983, the date of the judgment of the Divorce Court. Ordered accordingly. Order accordingly.;