BASANT SINGH Vs. SHAM KAUR, ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for revision against the order of Shri Gurjit Singh Sandhu, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gidderbaha, under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby Shrimati Sham Kaur was allowed a monthly Allowance of Rs. 50 and her daughter, Chhoto, a maintenance of Rs. 20 per mensem against Basant Singh, husband of the former.

(2.) SHRIMATI Sham Kaur was married to Basant Singh, Petitioner, about 18 years ago, and out of this wedlock two daughters were born, one of whom Chhoto, who was about four years of age at the time of these proceedings, is alive. According to Shrimati Sham Kaur, the reason for the rupture of her relations with her husband was the frustration of his expectation to get a male child in the family. And at the occasion of the birth of the second daughter, Basant Singh is said to have betrayed his disappointment by his failure to fetch her from the house of her parents where the birth took place. After that there were proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, which were instituted by him and eventually ended in a compromise, whereafter both of them started living together. But this is said to have been violated by her ill -treatment by Basant Singh. And only a couple of weeks before these proceedings were initiated, Sham Kaur and her daughter, Chhoto, were said to have been turned out of the house; the attempt of her father to persuade Basant Singh to receive them in his house and provide maintenance to them having been unsuccessful. It was under these circumstances that a consolidated amount of Rs. 100 as maintenance was sought by Sham Kaur for herself and for her minor daughter, Chhoto. This application was opposed by Basant Singh on denial of any ill -treatment or violence against Shrimati Sham Kaur. He admitted that he had taken proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights against Shrimati Sham Kaur and on the basis of a compromise between them both lived together as husband and wife for about three months. He denied the allegation if he contemplated a second marriage and expressed his agreeableness to keep Shrimati Sham Kaur in his house and to maintain her. He also explained that it was he who had taken proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights against Shrimati Sham Kaur when the latter returned to live with the former. Once again he reiterated his desire to keep Shrimati Sham Kaur and her daughter with him.

(3.) IN a perfunctory order in which the only discussion of the evidence and the various legal aspects involved in such proceedings was "I do not feel inclined with the story put forth by the Respondent. The evidence led by the applicant is very convincing and appealable to my mind", the trial Magistrate made a direction that the Petitioner shall pay Rs. 50 per mensem as maintenance to Shrimati Sham Kaur and Rs. 20 per mensem to her daughter, Chhoto. The proceedings are recommended to High Court on the following grounds: