BANSI LAL Vs. MST. PRITAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRITAM Kaur applied under Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure, against Bansi Lal for maintenance alleging that about 4 years back Bansi Lal was a Head Constable in the Punjab Armed Police and was posted in a P.A.P. picket in village Wan, when she was married to him. They both lived together thereafter as husband and wife and from that wedlock a daughter was born. Bansi Lal had taken a room in Amritsar from one Amrik Singh where she used to live and where Bansi Lal used to come during holidays and also on other occasions. It was also alleged that Bansi Lal then indulged in taking liquor and had cultivated illicit connections with other women, which Pritam Kaur resented. Bansi Lal, therefore, started beating and maltreating her. Amrik Singh, owner of that house, used to come to her rescue a number of times. The Applicant thereafter went to her parents and started living there at village Wan. The Respondent Bansi Lal was thereafter transferred to Jullundur and then to Gurdaspur where her brother Gurcharan Singh along With Sucha Singh. Achhar Singh and others went to him for reconciliation, but to no effect. Bansi Lal having refused to maintain her and even to take her back to his house, Pritam Kaur filed this application claiming Rs. 70 per mensem for herself and Rs. 30 per mensem for her minor daughter as maintenance. It was alleged that the salary of Bansi Lal was Rs. 130 per mensem and his income from the landed property was about 10,000 per annum.

(2.) THE application was resisted by Bansi Lal who denied his marriage with Pritam Kaur and asserted that he was already married to one Roshni Devi from whom he has a daughter aged about 8 years. The parties led evidence in support of their respective pleas. Shri Amar Singh, Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the Applicant was legally wedded to the Respondent and that the latter had neglected and refused to maintain her and her daughter, allowed Section 25 for Pritam Kaur and Rs. 10 for her daughter Harjinder Kaur by way of maintenance, - -vide his order, dated the 30th July, 1962. Against this order Bansi Lal went up in revision to the Court of Session, which came up before Shri Brijindra Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who held that Bansi Lal was already married to Roshni Devi and his marriage with Pritam Kaur being void, she (Pritam Kaur) was not entitled to any maintenance. Regarding Harjindar Kaur, daughter of Pritam Kaur, he found that there was no proof that the child was born to Pritam Kaur from the loins of Bansi Lal. As a result of the above findings, he made a recommendation to this Court that the order of the learned Magistrate, dated the 30th July, 1963 be set aside.

(3.) THERE is, however, enough material on the record to show that Harjinder Kaur was born to Pritam Kaur through Bansi Lal and that she is a minor. Although she is not living with her father yet she is entitled to maintenance by virtue of the provisions of Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure : See also/in this connection Abnash Chancier v. Smt. Soshila Devi , 1962 P.L.R. 161. In my opinion, therefore, a maintenance allowance of Rs. 30 per mensem for Harjinder Kaur would be sufficient. I order accordingly. The recommendation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is. therefore, partly accepted.