Sital Singh Alias Sital Dass Vs. Gurdip Kaur - Court Judgment |
| Criminal |
| Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Jul-31-1989 |
| Criminal Revision No. 1345 of 1985 |
| Ujagar Singh, J. |
| I(1990)DMC194 |
| Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 125 |
| Sital Singh Alias Sital Dass |
| Gurdip Kaur |
| K.G. Chaudhry, Adv. |
| Jasbir Singh, Adv. |
| Revision dismissed |
.....if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- consumer..........by a decree of divorce which was dismissed. the learned counsel has shown me a copy of the judgment a reading of which shows that the ground on which the same was dismissed mainly was that the respondent-husband (therein) had no intention to end the matrimonial relations. that finding is not helpful to the petitioner herein. dismissal of the said petition by the district court is not that relevant in an application under section 125, code of criminal procedure. the petitioner may still be neglecting or refusing to maintain his wife and at the same time, may be having no intention to end the matrimonial relationship. i do not find any infirmity in the order of the additional sessions judge, granting maintenance at the rate of rs. 50 p.m. to the respondent-wife while maintaining the grant of rs. 100 p.m. to balwinder singh minor-respondent. this revision, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed.
Ujagar Singh, J.
1. In this case, Smt. Gurdip Kaur wife of Sital Singh alias Sital Dass and Balwinder Singh minor son of Sital Singh, filed an application under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure. After recording evidence, the trial Court dismissed the application on behalf of Smt. Gurdip Kaur, but granted an amount of Rs. 100 p.m. in favour of Balwinder Singh minor-petitioner, vide order dated 26-9-1984. Gurdip Kaur and Balwinder Singh filed criminal revision before the Court of Sessions and that Court, vide order dated 9-7-1985, while maintaining the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 100 p.m. to Balwinder Singh minor-applicant, accepted the revision of Smt. Gurdip Kaur and granted her an amount of Rs. 50 p.m. as maintenance.
2. The revision-petitioner has challenged the said order of the Additional Sessions Judge, only on the ground that Smt. Gurdip Kaur had earlier filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce which was dismissed. The learned counsel has shown me a copy of the judgment a reading of which shows that the ground on which the same was dismissed mainly was that the respondent-husband (therein) had no intention to end the matrimonial relations. That finding is not helpful to the petitioner herein. Dismissal of the said petition by the District Court is not that relevant in an application under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner may still be neglecting or refusing to maintain his wife and at the same time, may be having no intention to end the matrimonial relationship. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50 p.m. to the respondent-wife while maintaining the grant of Rs. 100 p.m. to Balwinder Singh minor-respondent. This revision, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed.