Sital Singh Alias Sital Dass Vs. Gurdip Kaur - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/625568
SubjectCriminal
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-31-1989
Case NumberCriminal Revision No. 1345 of 1985
Judge Ujagar Singh, J.
Reported inI(1990)DMC194
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 125
AppellantSital Singh Alias Sital Dass
RespondentGurdip Kaur
Appellant Advocate K.G. Chaudhry, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Jasbir Singh, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Excerpt:
- administrative law - government contract: [vijender jain, c.j., rajive bhalla & sury kant, jj] government contract rejection of highest bid challenge as to held, state has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. its actions must be reasonable, fair and just 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. the state is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is state. though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel state to enter into a contract, yet latter can.....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.....
Judgment:

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.