PARGAT SINGH Vs. JAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this revision petition are as under: - Smt Jal Kaur applied under Section 488, Criminal P. C. against Pargat Singh, her husband, for maintenance allowance alleging that she was married to him in the year 2016 Bk. and lived with him as his wife for some time. He, however, had illicit connection with his brother's wife and wanted to marry her and, therefore, started maltreating her. As such she went to the house of her parents in the year 2019 Bk. Panchayats were sent by her parents to request Pargat Singh to take her back but to no effect. She also alleged that on 13. 11. 1962 Pargat Singh instituted a petition against her under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and that an order under Section 24 of than Act was passed in her favour fixing maintenance allowance of Rs. 32 p. m. with effect from 10. 1. 1963 and expenses of litigation of Rs. 50, but he failed to pay that amount to her as a result of which that petition was stayed.

(2.) THIS application was resisted by Pargat Singh who denied the allegations against him but admitted the factum of marriage. He also aver, red that Jal Kaur took ornaments and other valuables from his house worth Rs. 2000 to Rs. 3000 at the instance of her mother. He admitted having filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but he could not pay the amount as ordered by the trial Court and the proceedings were stayed. He further averred that he made numerous efforts including sending of Panchayats to the applicant hut she did not come to him. He stated that be was prepared to take her to his house and keep her as his wife and that he was ready to furnish any security which she desired. Her application was accepted by the trial Magistrate who vide his order dated 17. 12. 1964, fixed the maintenance allowance at bb. 30 p. m. from the date of the order. Pargat Singh went up in revision which was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, on 7th May, 1965, without discussing any evidence dittoed the order passed by the trial Magistrate.

(3.) IN this Court the counsel for the petitioner again repeated the offer that Pargat Singh was even now prepared to take her to trig house and live together as husband and wife and that he was willing to furnish any security which satisfied her. He also stated that although so far he had not been able to pay maintenance allowance to her but if time were given he would deposit the amount. He was, therefore, allowed fifteen days time to do so. It appears from the receipts which he has produced that he has deposited the entire amount due from him in the trial Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner took me through the evidence and urged that the view taken by the trial Court was not borne out from the evidence on the record. He submitted that the onus to prove that Pargat Singh had refused or neglected to maintain her was on her which she failed to discharge. He further mentioned that although it was denied that any Panchayat was sent to her parents, yet it was admitted by her own witness, Jabra Singh A. W. 1, that a Panchayat from the village of Pargat Singh did come to her village, but according to him it came with the idea of getting a deed of relinquishment from her. The latter portion of his evidence does not appear to be convincing when we find that disappointed by the refusal of his wife, Pargat Singh did put in an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. It is true that he failed to deposit the necessary amount ordered by the Court, but that may be due to extraneous circumstances. In any case, no adverse inference can be drawn from his failure to do so. The oral evidence led by the parties is almost of the similar type and may be the one led by Pargat Singh is slightly better. He had been making efforts to get her back almost in very Court. Even in this Court, he made a similar effort. Jal Kaur was called for and although she was present outside the Court, yet she did not come in. Her counsel, however, stated that under no circumstance was she prepared to go back to her husband.