KULVINDER SINGH Vs. MANJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KULVINDER Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 2. 7. 1992 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridabad, and the order dated 15. 7. 1993 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad.

(2.) SMT . Manjeet Kaur and her minor son Pavittar Singh filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) with the allegations briefly stated as under :-3. Respondent No. 1, Manjeet Kaur, was lawfully married to Kulvinder Singh petitioner on 30. 9. 1981 at Faridabad. Out of the wedlock, Pavittar Singh (respondent No. 2) was born on 12. 11. 1982. Shortly after the marriage, the petitioner and the other members of his family started treating Manjeet Kaur with cruelty and made her life virtually a hell. Things got from bad to worse with the passage of time and ultimately Manjeet Kaur and her son were deserted on 21,6. 1983. They were turned out of the matrimonial home. The petitioner entered into a second marriage with one Iqbal Kaur alias Charanjit Kaur, Manjeet Kaur (respondent No. 1) depends upon her parents and brothers. She has got no independent source of income to maintain herself and her minor son. On the other hand, Kulvinder Singh petitioner is a man of means and is running a workshop. He has shifted his business from Ballabgarh to Delhi and his income is around Rs. 3000/- per month. He has neglected and refused to maintain his wife and son since the year 1983. The respondents prayed for maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 1250/- per month. 4. In the written statement, the petitioner-husband admitted his marriage with Manjeet Kaur but denied the allegations of cruelty and maltreatment. According to him, Manjeet Kaur (respondent No. J) had herself been misbehaving with him and the other members of the family and was in the habit of leaving the matrimonial home without his permission. The allegation of second marriage was denied. The petitioner-husband also asserted that Manjeet Kaur is residing in a house owned by her father-in-law and is earning sufficient amount from the business of lathe machines and the petition brought by her under Section 125 of the Code is not maintainable.

(3.) HE asserted that he has been turned out from his parental house by his father and is running from pillar to post in search of some job but has been unsuccessful till now.