RAHIM-UL-DIN Vs. SATWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRIMATI Satwant Kaur (now the respondent) was married to Raghmel Singh who now claims himself to be Rahim -ul -Din. When they could not carry on as husband and wife, Shrimati Satwant Kaur made an application for maintenance allowance under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. The said application was allowed on 11th December, 1969, and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 40/ - per mensem as maintenance allowance to her.

(2.) THE petitioner fell in arrears of maintenance allowance and, therefore, Shrimati Satwant Kaur made an application for realisation of maintenance allowance due to her for the period from 11th December, 1969, to 10th May, 1970. Since the petitioner did not pay any further allowance to her, she made second application for recovery of the maintenance allowance for the period from 11th May, 1970 to 10th October, 1970. Still, he did not pay any maintenance allowance to her and she made their application for realisation of maintenance allowance for the period from 11th October, 1970 to 10th September, 1971. The petitioner continued to be in arrears of maintenance allowance Shrimati Satwant Kaur had to move fourth application for recovery of the maintenance allowance for the period from 11th September, 1971 to 10th August, 1972. In all these four applications, the petitioner took up an objection that she (Shrimati Satwant Kaur) could not realise the maintenance allowance for the reason that his marriage with her was not subsisting because he had embraced Islam. The said objection, raised by him, was over -ruled by the learned Magistrate in all the four applications. He went in revision to the Court of Sessions Judge Patiala, in all those four cases. The said revision petitions were dismissed. Hence, he preferred to this Court four revision petitions. This revision petition relates to the application moved by Shrimati Satwant Kaur for realisation of the maintenance allowance for the period from 11th December, 1969 to 10th May, 1970. Revision petition No. 1035 of 1973 relates to the recovery of the maintenance allowance for the period from 11th May 1970 to 10th October, 1973, Criminal Revision petition No. 1031 of 1973 relates to the recovery of maintenance allowance for the period from 11th October, 1970 to 10th September, 1974, and Criminal Revision petition No. 1033 of 1973 relates to the application moved by her for the maintenance allowance for the period from 11th September, 1971 to 10th August, 1972. Since the question involved in all the four revision petitions is one and the same; therefore, these four revision petitions are being disposed of by one judgment. I have heard the arguments.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , I, maintaining the impugned orders dismiss this revision, as well as Revision petitions Nos. 1035 of 1973, 1031 of 1973 and 1033 of 1973.