BACHAN SINGH Vs. DALIP KAUR ALIA DEEPO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is husband's Regular Second Appeal against the judgment dated 2.6.1979 delivered by Addl. District Judge, Bhatinda.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that respondent -wife Smt. Dalip Kaur married the appellant Bachan Singh. After keeping her for about 20/25 years. She was turned out by the husband by giving her beating. All her requests through the meetings of Panchayat etc. failed, as the husband had deserted her she filed a suit on 3.9.1977 for fixing her maintenance @ Rs.300/ - p.m. It is pertinent to mention that the suit filed by her was in the forma pauperis, The trial Court rejected the argument of the appellant -husband that the respondent -wife was unchaste as she had been living in adultery and had infact married with the younger -brother of the appellant. After detailed consideration of the whole evidence produced by both sides, the issue with regard to unchastity of respondent -wife was decided against the appellant -husband. The trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent -wife fixing her maintenance @ Rs.100/ - p.m. and creating the same as a 'first' charge on the property owned by the appellant -husband which was leased out during the pendency of the suit. It was further made clear that since the respondent -wife was granted maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code also, she was not entitled to realise the maintenance amount in pursuance of both the orders civil as well as criminal. However, choice was given to her to choose which order she wish to execute. Against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.1978 passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Mansa, the appellant -husband filed an appeal. The challenge to the judgment was, however, confined to in so far as the trial Court had ordered the maintenance allowance as the first charge on the property of the appellant -husband. The further contention of the appellant -husband before the lower appellate Court was that in any case the first charge of the maintenance allowance could be created only against part of the land and not in respect of the whole land comprising 6 acres belonging to the appellant -husband because Sec. 27 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') does not permit creation of charge at all on the land/property of the appellant -husband in lieu of maintenance. The first appellate Court partially accepted the contention of the appellant -husband but kept the landed property of the appellant -husband under first charge to the extent of half of the land. It is against this judgment and decree as modified by the learned appellate Court that the appellant -husband has filed the present appeal.

(3.) 1 have heard Sri R.S. Bains, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant -husband and Shri Surinder Singli, Advocate for the respondent -husband and have perused the record with their assistance.