Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) By way of the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner Pawan Kumar has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 20.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in revision, affirming the order dated 15.09.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu in Misc. Case No.66/2002 granting maintenance to the respondents Smt. Sarla, being the wife and son of the petitioner and Kumari Mamta, his daughter (who is not a party respondent in the instant proceedings).
(2.) On the previous date of hearing i.e. on 10.01.2018, this Court had directed the learned counsel to keep their respective parties present in the Court so as to explore the possibility of amicable settlement. The respondent Smt. Sarla was present in the Court at the time of arguments but, the petitioner has failed to appear. Thus, the final arguments were heard on merits.
(3.) Learned counsel Shri Sandhu representing the petitioner vehemently urged that as a matter of fact ,the respondent Smt. Sarla has intentionally abandoned the matrimonial home without any justification and thus, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance whatsoever from the petitioner herein. He further submitted that the respondent No.3 Bhawani Shankar, being the son of the petitioner and Smt. Sarla, has attained majority and thus, he is not entitled to claim any maintenance whatsoever. He further urged that in the statement of Smt. Sarla recorded by the learned Magistrate, she has admitted that she did not desire to go and live in her matrimonial home. He further urged that the criminal case lodged by the respondent Smt. Sarla against the petitioner and his family members for the offences under Section 498A, 406 and 120B IPC resulted into their acquittal vide judgment dated 14.09.2006. Likewise, the divorce petition filed by Smt. Sarla against the petitioner on the ground of cruelty was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Churu vide judgment dated 22.02.2008. He further pointed out that in her statement recorded in proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, registered in the court of District Judge, Jhunjhunu, Smt. Sarla admitted that she used to work as a teacher and was earning livelihood in this manner. On these grounds, learned counsel Shri Sandhu urged that the orders passed by the courts below are absolutely illegal and perverse and deserve to be set aside. Per contra, Shri Pritam Solanki learned counsel representing the respondents vehemently urged that the petitioner started harassing Smt Sarla soon after their marriage. Unwarranted fetters were put on her freedom. She as well as her children were not provided food or means of sustenance . The prior proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and those under Sections 498A and 406 IPC were undertaken on genuine grounds but the petitioner got the same terminated through compromise after giving false assurances. However, he continued his cruel behavior with the respondents whereupon, fresh proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. came to be lodged. That Smt Sarla categorically denied having any source of sustained livelihood/ income. On these grounds, he craved dismissal of the petition .;