LAWS(P&H)-1984-1-80

SAT PAL Vs. USHA RANI

Decided On January 06, 1984
SAT PAL Appellant
V/S
USHA RANI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by Sat Pal husband of Shrimati Usha Rani respondent against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, dated 23rd October, 1982, vide which he granted Rs. 100/ - per month to Shrimati Usha Rani respondent and Rs. 50/ - to Renu Bala, daughter of Shrimati Usha Rani, born out of the loins of the petitioner, on an application made by Shrimatti Usha Rani respondent under section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner contested the application filed by Shrimati Usha Rani respondent before the Chief Judicial -Magistrate, Ambala, on the ground that she was living separately under a consent decree of divorce passed by the District Judge, Chandigarh. It was further contended by the petitioner in reply to the petition under section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, that respondent Usha Rani had married one Chhinda and was living with him as his wife in Ambala City after the decree of divorce. The petitioner also denied Renu Bala to be his daughter and stated that she was an illegitimate child. During the trial the petitioner admitted that Renu Bala was his daughter and did not reiterate that Shrimati Usha Rani respondent had married one Chhinda after the decree of divorce. The petitioner's counsel during the trial was constrained to concede the legal proposition as enunciated in Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothia and another, 1979 Cri. LJ 151, that a divorced wife is also entitled to maintenance if she is unable to maintain herself. The learned trial Court came to a definite finding that the petitioner (as admitted him) was an employee of the Health Department and was getting Rs. 402/ - per month as his salary. The plea of the petitioner that Usha Rani respondent was earning about Rs. 200/ - was not accepted by the trial Court since this assertion could not be sustained by the petitioner. In this situation I am of the view that the learned trial Court rightly awarded the aforesaid amount of maintenance to Shrimati Usha Rani and her minor child Renu Bala. Mr. F.C. Chhabra, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not been able to point out any or illegality infirmity in the order of the trial Magistrate.

(2.) RESULTANTLY , this revision petition fails being without merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.