CHARANJIT KAUR Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the first Appellate Court granting ad-interim maintenance on an application filed by the respondents for the grant of maintenance under the Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE petitioners sought maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month by creating charge on the land measuring 68 kanals 14 marlas on the ground that they have no movable and immovable property and that they have no means to sustain themselves. It is alleged that the marriage of the petitioner No. 1 was solemnised with Jaswinder Singh son of the defendant, present respondent on 4.5.1997. Out of the said wedlock, petitioner No. 2 Inderjit Singh son was born. After the death of Jaswinder Singh in foreign country, petitioner No. 1 was forced to contract Kareva marriage with Jit Singh but since she did not agree she was given beating and was turned out of the house. In reply it was stand of the defendant that petitioner No. 1 has contracted second marriage with Jit Singh and is residing with him at village Nihaluwal.

(3.) FIRSTLY , the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the finding given by the first Appellate Court that the petitioner No. 1 would be deemed to have contracted second marriage with Jit Singh for non-filing of replication is wholly erroneous. It is contended that any finding regarding performing of kareva marriage with Jit Singh can be returned only on the basis of evidence led before the learned trial Court as it is the categorical case of the plaintiff in the plaint itself that she has not performed kareva marriage with Jit Singh. Non-filing of replication will not raise any presumption. It is further argued that even it is prima facie found that the petitioner No. 1 has performed kareva marriage the petitioner No. 2 would in any case be entitled to maintenance.