Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohinder Singh vs Surjit Kaur And Ors. on 5 September, 1992
Equivalent citations: I(1994)DMC163
JUDGMENT N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. This is defendant's regular first appeal against the judgment and decree of Sub Judge I Class dated 29.1.1979 whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs claiming maintenance on the ground that the defendant deserted the plaintiffs.
2. The plaintiffs filed suit in forma pauperis on 23.5.1973 seeking declaration to the effect that they are entitled to grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month from the defendant and also for recovery of Rs. 2.400/-as arrears of maintenance from October, 1972 to April 1973 at the same rate. The plaintiff was allowed to sue the suit in forma pauperis and the same was registered vide order dated. 22.7.1977. As per averments made in the plaint, plaintiff No. 1 Shnmati Surjit Kaur averred that she married Mohinder Singh defendant about 15 years back. Three daughters and a son were born. Out of these two daughters have already died thus leaving one son and a daughter plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 who are living with her. It is further case of the plaintiffs that the defendant started maltreating her as he married second, time and so turned her and the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 from his house. The plaintiff made an attempt through the intervention of the members of the panchayat for an amicable settlement but the same did not yield any fruit and hence this suit.
3. Defendant in his written statement denied the factum of marriage as set up by plaintiff No. 1. Defendant also denied that plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are his son and daughter from Shrimati Surjit Kaur, plaintiff No. 1.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :
(1) Whether plaintiff No. 1 is the wife of the defendant and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of the plaintiff ? OPP. (2) Whether the plaintiffs are neglected and deserted by the defendants ? OPP. (3) To what amount of maintenance are the plaintiffs entitled ? OPP. (4) Relief.
The trial Court after discussing the evidence led by the parties, came to the firm conclusion that the defendant married plaintiff some 15 years back and that plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 were born from their wedlock. Issue No. ( was decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff, Under issue No. 2, the Court relied upon the statement of plaintiff No. 1 with regard to her allegation of maltreatment by the defendant and his deserting her and thereby refusing to maintain the plaintiffs. Accordingly, this issue was also decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Under issue No. 3, the Court evaluating the monthly income of the defendant at Rs. 500/- granted a maintenance of Rs. 100/- to plaintiff No. 1 and Rs. 50/- to plaintiff No. 3 - Azad Singh. Under relief, besides granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month to plaintiff No. 1 and at Rs. 50/- per month to plaintiff No. 3, the Court granted the maintenance amount from October 1972 to April 7, 1973 at the same rate. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed with costs.
5. The appellant has assailed the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 29.1.1979 being illegal, without jurisdiction and erroneous in law and against facts on record.
6. Much emphasis was laid by the learned Counsel in respect of the findings of the trial Court under issue No. 1. According to the Counsel, the Court erred in law in relying upon the testimony of the plaintiff. In fact, the statement of plaintiff No. 1 is full of contradictions and thus, the same is not worthy of credence. Counsel further argued that the trial Court erred in law in relying upon the voters list Ex. P-2 for the year 1970 as well as making mention of the photograph showing the plaintiff, defendant and a child therein.
7. I have carefully perused the statement of the witnesses and documentary evidence led by the parties.
8. Leaving aside the minor discrepancies in the statement of Shrimati Surjit Kaur which have been highlighted by the Counsel for the appellant with a view to distract the Court from evaluating the entries with regard to the birth of a son Ex. P-1, voters list Ex. P-3 and photograph of the plaintiff, defendant and a child Ex. P-4, no material evidence has been referred to by which it could be deducted that factum of marriage as set up by the plaintiff did not take place. One cannot lose sight of the fact that entry with regard to the birth of a son (plaintiff No. 3 Azad Singh) is duly recorded in the register of Municipal Committee, Ropar, on 31.1.1967 as entry long before the filing of the suit or even before Shrimati Surjit Kaur was alleged to have been turned out from the house of the defendant. Even entry in the voters list Ex. P-2 for the year 1970 record plaintiff No. 1 and defendant as wife and husband. Not only this, photograph Ex. P-4 shows plaintiff No. 1, and defendant alongwith a child who is stated to be plaintiff No. 3. Defendant when appeared as a witness has admitted the correctness of this photograph. Defendant has also admitted that plaintiff No. 1 appears alongwith him in this photograph. This evidence itself belies the stand of the defendant that they were never married and so never lived as husband and wife. Even the case set-up by the defendant that in fact he was married to one Champa who hailed from Chhalwara in Madhya Pradesh was found without any substance by the trial Court. On re-appraisal of this evidence, I also find no infirmity in the same. In fact the trial Court has threadbare discussed the testimony of witnesses examined by defendant and found the same un-worthy of credence. This way, I find no merit in the submission of the Counsel for the appellant and so affirm the findings of the trial Court under issue No. 1.
9. Issue No. 2 is in fact a corollary to issue No. 1. Besides the evidence of the plaintiff that the defendant has deserted : by evidence of the defendant that he married one Champa prove the contention of the plaintiffs that he deserved them. Finding on issue No. 2 is also affirmed.
10. Under issue No. 3, the trial Court by conservative estimates assessed the monthly income of the defendant at Rs. 500/- and so awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month to plaintiff No. 1, and Rs. 50/- to plaintiff No. 3. Since no cross-appeal or objections have been filed by the plaintiffs, there is no option but to accept the finding of the trial Court.
11. Resultantly, the appeal is wholly without merit and the same is dismissed with costs. Costs assessed at Rs. 500/-.