RAJINDER SINGH Vs. MANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 27. 3. 1990 whereby the prayer of the respondent made under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the grant of interim maintenence for her and her son from the loins of her former husband was accepted and the petitioner was directed to pay it at the rate of Rs. 1,000 p. m. i. e. Rs. 700 p. m. for the respondent and Rs. 300 p. m. for the son, Tinku born from the loins of Jaswant Singh, late elder brother of the petitioner.

(2.) THE back drop of the case is that the respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming restitution of conjugal rights on the plea that her late husband Jaswant Singh, elder brother of the present petitioner to whom she was married died in a road accident and Tinku was born to them on 12. 12. 1981. According to her stand she was married to the petitioner on 16. 1. 1983 i. e. just ten days after the death of her former husband, by way of Kreva ceremony. Though this factum of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was seriously disputed by the petitioner before the trial Court, yet the Court has chosen to pass the order in question merely by observing that:

(3.) IN the light of this, it appears difficult to reconcile the two contradictory conclusions of the Court as noticed above. The fact remains that the respondent placed no material before the trial Court to prove even prima facie her marriage with the petitioner. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the petitioner produced before me photo copy of the duly sworn affidavit of the respondent dated 28. 9. 1988 filed for purposes of transfer of the telephone connection in her name from that of her late husband Jaswant Singh in which she had claimed herself to be widow of Jaswant Singh. He has also produced before me copy of the statement made by the respondent before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 19. 2. 1985 whereby she claimed the compensation as widow of Jaswant Singh. The learned Counsel has again produced before me a copy of the plaint of Civil Suit No. 170 dated 10-9-1983 pending in the Court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh, wherein the respondent has asserted her claim to the allotment of an industrial plot for which an application had been made by her late husband Jaswant Singh. In any case it has not been pointed out by the trial Court anywhere as to how Tinku, son of respondent from her former husband Jaswant Singh is entitled to any maintenance from the petitioner.