MANJEET SINGH Vs. MEENA ALIAS MANPREET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) challenging the order by which maintenance allowance has been granted to the respondents under Section 125 of the Code.

(2.) MANPREET Kaur was married to Sardar Manjcet Singh on 4-10-1987 and after the marriage she started living with him at Mathura (U. P. ). Sonu was born to her on 22-7-1988 at Mathura and Gudia on 3-11-1989 at Itarsi. She filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code stating therein that she has been driven out of the matrimonial home on 18-2-1991 and since then she is living with her parents at Itarsi. The husband denied that he is father of these two children. According to him Manpreet Kaur was earlier married to Amarjeet Singh and he is the father of these children. It has been stated that Manpreet Kaur has admitted this fact in the two affidavits dated 3-2-1990 and 9-2-1990 (Ex. D-3 and Ex. D-4) sworn by her at Mathura. The Trial Magistrate after appreciation of the documentary and oral evidence adduced by both the sides by his order dated 5-1-1998 held that Sardar Manjeet Singh is the father of the two children and granted maintenance allowance of Rs. 400/- per month to the wife and Rs. 300/- per month to each of the two children. A revision filed by the husband against that order has been dismissed by order dated 21-9-1998 and, therefore, he has filed the present petition assailing those orders.

(3.) IT has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that he is not the father of the two children and as his wife is living in adultery she is not entitled to maintenance allowance. As already stated there is a concurrent finding of fact of the two Courts that the petitioner is the father of the two children and the wife is not living in adultery with Amarjeet Singh. That finding being based on evidence on record cannot be disturbed by this Court in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code. It has been pointed that this finding is contrary to the admissions made in the two affidavits referred to above and therefore it is perverse. After going through the affidavits and other documentary and oral evidence on record this Court is also of the opinion that these affidavits have been obtained from the wife by undue-influence and fraud. She was the victim of mental and physical duress. The father of the wife immediately after returning from Mathura lodged a report supported by his own affidavit at Itarsi. She wrote a number of letters from Mathura to Itarsi during the period she was living there and the husband had access to her during the period the children were begotten. Amarjeet Singh was examined as a witness by applicant Manpreet Kaur and he deposed that he had no relation with her and he never married her. The finding of the two Courts regarding the paternity of the children is correct.