RAJINDER SINGH Vs. SWARANJIT KAUR @ MOHINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.01.2009 and 04.02.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in COCP No.1068 of 2006 titled 'Swaranjit Kaur alias Mohinder Kaur versus Rajinder Singh'. The appellant was convicted under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months; besides, pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 1 months.

(3.) The parties were married on 04.12.2002 and they had a daughter from their marriage. On account of the matrimonial dispute which arose between them, the respondent lodged a FIR on 03.11.2004 alleging commission of offences under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'-for short) as also under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. During the pendency of the case, appellant filed Criminal Misc. No. M-31377 of 2005 for the grant of pre-arrest bail. This Court in terms of order dated 31.05.2005 (Annexure P-2) in view of the statement of counsel for the appellant to the effect that the appellant would be sending a sum of Rs.2000/- per month to his estranged wife without prejudice to his rights and contentions towards maintenance, granted interim pre arrest bail subject to compliance with the provisions of Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter vide order dated 09.09.2003 (Annexure P-3), the interim bail was made absolute as counsel for the complainant (now respondent) stated that if the amount of Rs.2000/- per month which was agreed to be paid by the appellant to the respondent without prejudice to his rights and contentions towards maintenance was paid by the 10 th of each month, then he had no objection if the interim anticipatory bail was confirmed. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court disposed of the criminal miscellaneous petition and made the order dated 31.05.2005 (Annexure P-2) granting interim bail absolute. The appellant was directed that he would pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.2000/- per month to his wife (respondent) on 10 th of each month towards maintenance.