Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurjinder Singh vs Randhir Kaur And Another on 28 November, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-40332 of 2013
Date of decision: November 28, 2013
Gurjinder Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Randhir Kaur and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Rajvir Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner Gurjinder Singh has filed this petition against Randhir Kaur and Kashmir Singh under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 26.05.2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the application of interim maintenance of the respondents has been allowed and maintenance of ` 1,000/- per month was granted and the judgment dated 26.09.2011 (Annexure P-
7) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, whereby revision petition filed by the present petitioner has been dismissed.
It is stated in the petition that respondent No.1 is widow of Randhir Singh, who died in a motor vehicular accident long time back. After the death of Randhir Singh, respondent No.1 came in contact Gulati Vineet 2013.12.11 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-40332 of 2013 -2- with the petitioner and requested him to live with her as there is no male member in the family to look after respondent No.1 and her child. The petitioner started living with them in the year 2002. When the father of the petitioner came to know about this fact, he disowned the petitioner from his moveable and immoveable properties.
It is also stated in the petition that no marriage ceremony was performed and no karevanama was made. The petitioner was residing with respondent No.1 and her child only to maintain the minor child of respondent No.1. The trial Court disposed of the application for grant of interim maintenance vide order dated 26.05.2011 and granted ` 1,000/- per month as maintenance. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, who dismissed the same vide judgment dated 26.09.2011. The Courts below have erred in passing the orders as respondent No.1 is not legally wedded wife of the petitioner. It is further stated in the petition that respondent No.1 is a working lady and doing stitching work and running a dairy and also having land in her name.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that respondent No.1 is not a legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the petitioner is not liable to pay the maintenance.
I have perused the order dated 26.05.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar. The perusal of the order nowhere shows that the petitioner has denied the marriage etc. or argued this point before the Magistrate. Learned Magistrate, rather in the order has written that relationship between the parties is admitted. Gulati Vineet 2013.12.11 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-40332 of 2013 -3- Copy of the written statement/reply to the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is also placed on the record as Annexure P-4. Para No.2 of reply 'on merits' is admitted as correct to the extent that both the parties after the marriage resided as husband and wife but both are residing in the house of the petitioner (present respondent No.1). It is also mentioned in the written statement that when respondent (present petitioner) got married with the petitioner (present respondent No.1) then parents of the respondent (present petitioner) disinherited him from their all moveable and immoveable properties. These averments show that the marriage of the petitioner with respondent Randhir Kaur is admitted before the Judicial Magistrate in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Now, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner was not married with respondent No.1 and they were residing together only to look after respondent No.2. This argument is totally out of pleadings.
The interim maintenance @ ` 1,000/- only has been given vide order dated 26.05.2011 and the revision petition against the above-said order was also dismissed vide judgment dated 26.09.2011 and the present petition has been filed now on 27.11.2013. There is no cogent explanation regarding the delay in filing the present petition also.
From the record, I find that there is no merit in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. The order dated 26.05.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar and the judgment dated 25.09.2011 passed by learned Sessions Gulati Vineet 2013.12.11 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-40332 of 2013 -4- Judge, Rupnagar are correct, as per law and no illegality has been committed therein.
Therefore, finding no merit, the present petition stands dismissed.
November 28, 2013 (INDERJIT SINGH)
Vgulati JUDGE
Gulati Vineet
2013.12.11 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh