Back
1993 Supreme(MP) 262
Shacheendra Dwivedi, J.
Durga Prasad v. Bala Bai
Misc. Cr. Case No. 764 of 1993 (G); Decided on 12.4.1993*.
Act Referred
Headnote
naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 125 & Hkj.kiks"k.k dh iwoZ dh vthZ blfy, [kkfjt dh xbZ fd vkosnd viuh thfodk miktZu ds fy, leFkZ ikbZ xbZ & 8 o"kZ i‘pkr~ nwljh vthZ oftZr ugha gS D;ksafd gks ldrk gS fd og dqN Hkh miktZu djus ds fy, vleFkZ gks xbZ gksa & iwoZ U;k; ykxw ugha gksrkA
Rakesh Saxena for petitioner.
The respondent filed a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. submitting that she was married with the petitioner about 25 years back and is not now keeping well. She remains sick and she has no means to maintain herself.
To this application the exception was taken by the petitioner submitting that earlier when such an application was filed by the respondent under section 125 Cr.P.C., it was dismissed by the trial Court as the respondent herself stated that she was earning her livelihood by doing labour work. Although it had also appeared earlier in the evidence that some land had come to her share from her father but the application was rejected mainly on the ground that it was not proved that she was unable to maintain herself as she was earning the livelihood while working as labourer.
The present application has been filed after 8 years of the earlier application and the respondent has certainly grown up older by eight years. Due to the lapse of long and also due to the escalation in the prices of essential commodities, the Court now has also to inquire whether due to her growing age, and in the present circumstances she is still able to maintain herself. The learned trial Court, therefore, entertained the application rejecting the objection of the petitioner. As against that order, he filed a revision which has also been rejected.
Shri Saxena has relied on the authorities of Mehtar v. Tiji Kunwar: 1985 MPWN 457 and Vithalrao v. Ratnaprabha: 1978 CrLJ 1406. The authorities relied upon by the petitioner are of no avail as they are distinguishable on facts. With the lapse of 8 years, the circumstances have changed and there is no bar under the Code of Criminal Procedure for entertaining a second petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. being filed on the changed circumstances. In the facts and circumstances, the principles of res judicata are neither attracted nor can be applied and the learned trial Court has rightly entertained the application.
I have found no ground for entertaining this petition and the petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine without notice to the other side. 1985 MPWN 457 and 1978 CrLJ 1406 distinguished.
