PARKASH BHUTANI Vs. RAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 22.10.1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal and the order dated 18.8.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal whereby order of interim maintenance granted to respondent No. 2 by the trial Magistrate had been affirmed.

(2.) THE circumstances which led to the institution of the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') need to be noticed. Smt. Ramma and her son-Sahil had claimed interim maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month each. According to the stand taken by the respondents-petitioners, Ramma had earlier married to Rajesh Batra on 5.12.1990. Out of this wedlock son-Sahil, respondent No. 12 was born on 16.1.1992. Subsequently that marriage was dissolved. Parkash Bhutani, petitioner gave advertisement in the matrimonial column of Daily Punjab Kesari, Jalandhar for a suitable match. Ramma, respondent No. 1 responded to said advertisement. The marriage between her and Parkash Bhutan was solemnised in December 1994. Thereafter it was found by respondent No. 1 that the petitioner was already married and had a living wife named Asha. The petitioner had no issue from his first wife and for that reason he agreed to adopt Sahil as his son. Adoption and Mundan ceremonies were also performed. Subsequently, both of them were turned out of the house which impelled the respondents to seek the protection of the Court by claiming maintenance for them.

(3.) THE trial Magistrate after taking into account the respective stands of the parties denied the interim maintenance to Ramma, respondent No. 1 on the ground that she was not the wedded wife of the petitioner. However, Sahil, respondent No. 2 was granted maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month from the date of the application along with Rs. 800/- as costs of the litigation expenses. The order of the trial Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner by filing Criminal Revision No. 50 of 1997, which was decided on 18.8.1998 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby the order of the trial Magistrate was affirmed. It is these orders which have been challenged in the present petition.