The High Court has taken that view for the following reasons , The objection as to jurisdiction was raised right at the first instance by the husband.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 14th March 1974 of the Delhi High Court in Crimi nal Revision Petition No.
The Magistrate passed an order for production of evidence.
The respondent applied for a revision of that order, and the Additional Sessions Judge referred the case, to the High Court on November 30, 1973, for dismissal of the application under section 488 of the Code on the ground that the Delhi Magistrate had numberjuris diction to entertain it.
6,458/ on account of her stridhan.
Nothing came out of it and she filed the present application under section 488 of the Code in the .Court of the Delhi Magistrate on March 18, 1969.
As the High Court has allowed the reference, and dismissed the revision application which was filed by the appellant for an increase in the mainte nance allowance, the appellant has companye up to this Court by special leave.
The respondent thereupon prayed that the question of juris diction may be decided before recording the evidence.
The respondent filed an application for divorce, or judicial separation, in 1956 in Aligarh Uttar Pradesh .
It was necessary for the appellant to.
The respondent did number challenge that order or apply for permis sion to file additional reply.
As the respondent had reserved his right to lead evidence on merits, it is number a case where the husband deliberately gave up his right to lead evidence on merits There was obvious prejudice and failure of justice the respondent as he never led evidence on the merits.
An objection was however taken that as the earlier application was dismissed on February 2, 1956, the second application was barred on the principle of res judicata.
He did number even apply for permission to file any ,additional reply when the Magistrate recorded the appellants evidence on her application for maintenance as a whole.
It is the admitted case of the parties that they were living separately from 1953.
125/ per month, with effect from March 18, 1969, along with an order regarding the mode of payment of the arrears.
6,458/ .
It was ultimately dismissed on appeal on March 29, 1968.
It was stated in the application that the parties lived at Lampur, as husband and wife and there was companyabitation.
He made an order on November 19, 1969 that the question of jurisdiction must await the recording of the evidence on the whole case.
The appellant prayed for an order allowing her Rs.
That was number agreed to by the magistrate.
Ultimately the Magistrate made his final order on May 21, 1973.
The respondent specifically reserved his right to file a written reply on merits after the question of jurisdiction was decid ed.
It was decreed on appeal by the Delhi High Court in 1967, for Rs.
The appellant filed her first application for maintenance under section 488 of the Code, in 1955, but it was dismissed.
We have number found it possible to go through the reply because it has been stated by companynsel for the parties that the original record has been destroyed.
prove that the respondent had refused and neglected to maintain her, and that obviously requires an opportunity to be given to the husband to prove his case,, if it be one, that he has number refused or refuses or neglected to maintain his wife or what his income and means is.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
In the meantime the appellant filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of her stridhen in Delhi in 1956.
1000 He took numberice of the fact that the plea of bar against the maintainability of the second application because of the dismissal of the first application, was number pressed by the respondent and after referring to the entire evidence in details, he reached the companyclusion that he had the jurisdic tion to entertain the application, and granted maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.
Appellant Raj Kumari Vijh was married to respondent Dev Raj Vijh in Delhi, in June 1950.
The appel lant gave a numberice to the respondent on June 24, 1968, claiming maintenance as a deserted wife.
61 of 1974.
On the other hand, he asked for the holding of an identification parade for the purpose of showing that some of the appellants witnesses did number even know him.
450/ per month for maintenance as the respondent had sufficient means but had neglected or refused to maintain her.
The respondent filed a reply on April 29, 1969 in which, according to the Magistrate, there was numberspecific denial of the averment that the parties last resided together at Lampur.
He took the view that there was numberspecific denial of the appellants allegation that the parties last resided together, as husband and wife, in village Lampur, in Delhi, towards the end of December in 1968.
1001 Before a decision on merits can be given the husband has the undoubted request sic to lead evidence on merits.
Both the parties led their evidence, al though it appears that the respondent did number like to avail of the opportunity which was given to him to lead evidence on the merits.
An objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court on the ground that the respondent never resided, permanently or temporarily in Delhi.
C. Mahajan and S.L.Aneja, for respondent.
447 of 1974.
respondent Dev Raj Vijh and dismissing the appellants application dated March 18, 1969, under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, hereinafter referred to as the Code.
It was stated in the application that the appellant had lived with the respondent in Delhi and Aligarh as his legally wedded wife, and thereafter at village Lampur, P.S. Narela, Delhi, towards the end of December 1968, because the respondent visited her there for a settle ment and for number execution of the decree which she had obtained for Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHINGHAL, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated March 14, 1974, allowing the revision application of.
Mrs. Urmila Kapoor and Miss Kamlesh Bansal, for the appel lant.
