- (1.)BEING aggrieved by the order dated 30.9.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Revision No. 554/05, whereby the order dated 7.5.2005 passed by JMFC, Depalpur, District Indore in Criminal Case No. 10/2000, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under section 127 (3) CrPC was allowed holding respondent liable for payment of maintenance, was set aside, the present petition has been filed.
(2.)SHORT facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a petition under section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance against the respondent alleging that petitioner is wedded wife of the respondent. The application was allowed by the learned trial Court and vide order dated 23.3.1986 respondent was directed to pay maintenance @ 250/- per month. Thereafter on 9.3.2000 an application was filed by the petitioner before the learned Court below alleging that in compliance of the order dated 23.3.1986 the maintenance was paid by the respondent from time to time, but no maintenance has been paid w.e.f. 15.3.1999, hence it was prayed that an amount of Rs. 2,950/- be awarded as maintenance from 9th of March 2000. This application was opposed by the respondent by filing reply, wherein it was alleged that respondent is not liable for payment of maintenance as the respondent has already given divorce to the petitioner by making a declaration in presence of witnesses on 21.10.1996. It was alleged that since 21.10.1996 respondent is no more husband of petitioner, therefore, respondent is not liable for payment of maintenance. It was also alleged that on 30.10.1996 respondent sent written declaration of divorce to the petitioner by registered post acknowledgment due. It was alleged that petitioner refused to take the said letter, hence the same came back with a postal remark of refusal. It was alleged that the fact that respondent has given divorce was duly communicated to the petitioner, hence the petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.
After holding summary enquiry learned trial Court vide order dated 28.7.2001 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner against which a revision petition was filed by the petitioner on 31.7.2001, which was allowed vide order dated 21.2.2003 and the case was remanded back after setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Court with a direction to record the evidence and pass a fresh order.

(3.)IN compliance of the order passed by learned Revisional Court, an enquiry was held and by the impugned order dated 7.5.2005 the application filed by the petitioner was allowed and it was held that petitioner is entitled for maintenance. Against this order a revision petition was filed by the respondent which was numbered as 554/05 and learned Sessions Judge, Indoce vide order dated 30.9.2005 allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent and set aside the order dated 7.5.2005 passed by JMFC, Depalpur, whereby it was held that respondent is liable for payment of maintenance, holding that respondent is not liable for payment of compensation, against which the present petition has been filed.