BALWINDER SINGH Vs. MANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing of the petition filed by respondent Manjit Kaur under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure annexed as Annexure P-1 with this petition.

(2.) IN her petition under Section 125 of the Code for grant of maintenance, respondent Manjit Kaur alleged that petitioner Balwinder Singh Bedi's first marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce, dated May 29, 1915 vide judgment of Shri G. S. Chahal, District Judge, Amritsar under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. She further alleged in her application that Balwinder Singh Bedi (petitioner in this case) and his parents falsely represented to her and to her parents that the petitioner had got divorce from his former wife Tajinder Kaur, daughter of Ajit Singh Sodhi, a resident of Chandigarh and deceitfully persuaded her and parents to soleminise her marriage with the petitioner. Their such representation to her and to her parents was false as it was in their knowledge that divorce proceedings for dissolution of the earlier marriage by Balwinder Singh Bedi with Tajinder Kaur were still pending in the Court of District Judge, Amritsar, at that time. The complaint and her parents not being aware of the act of deception played on the by Balwinder Singh Bedi and his parents, accepted the proposal for solemnisation of the marriage of Manjit Kaur with Balwinder Singh Bedi placing full reliance on the version as given out by them, and their accomplices. The marriage took place between the respondent and Balwinder Singh Bedi at Amritsar on August 24, 1986 according to Sikh religious rites.

(3.) THE petitioner wants the quashing of application of Manjit Kaur respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the following grounds :- (i) that a bare perusal of the application of respondent Manjit Kaur annexed as Annexure P 1 with the petition reveals that the basic requirement of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the respondent being a 'wife' which terms denotes a legally wedded wife, is not made out, because the main case of the respondent was that her alleged marriage took place with the petitioner when petitioner's earlier marriage was still subsisting. The term 'wife' includes a legally wedded wife and also the one who has been divorced, but it does not include a woman who cannot lay claim to the status of a legally wedded wife. The respondent herself admits that the she was married to the petitioner when his earlier marriage with one Tajinder Kaur was existing; (ii) that initiation of proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will, thus, be nothing except an abuse of process of the Court.