LAWS(P&H)-1996-3-98

GURMIT SINGH Vs. GURDEV KAUR

Decided On March 23, 1996
GURMIT SINGH Appellant
V/S
GURDEV KAUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN present petition filed under section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the following interesting question of law has arisen:-

(2.) ON 9.7.1993, the petitioner moved an application for dismissal of the aforesaid execution application (Annexure P.1) on the grounds that his daughter Narinder Pal Kaur was major and not a minor on the date of the passing of the order dated 15.12.1990 itself and that his second daughter Beant Kaur attained majority in the year 1991, and as such he was not liable to pay maintenance allowance to his said daughters for the aforesaid period. Shri I.S. Bedi, Advocate, counsel for the applicant (petitioner herein) tendered a sum of Rs. 1800/- payable to Smt. Gurdev Kaur (respondent No. 1) on account of maintenance for the period 11.3.1992 to 10.9.1992 and made a statement that Narinder Pal Kaur and Beant Kaur (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein) had become major and were not entitled to get any maintenance for the said period.

(3.) IN compliance with the directions of this Court, the Judicial Magistrate, after obtaining a reply to the application and recording evidence of the parties, has come to the conclusion that Narinder Pal Kaur (respondent No. 2) attained majority on 16.8.1989 and Beant Kaur (respondent No. 3) become major in the year 1991. It has also been found that Narinder Pal Kaur and Beant Kaur are not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality. On the basis of these findings, the Judicial Magistrate has held that Narinder Pal Kaur and Beant Kaur are not entitled to claim maintenance with effect from 9.7.1993 i.e. the date on which the present petitioner had filed the application (Annexure P.1) and the petitioner has been directed to pay the arrears of maintenance allowance to his said daughters upto the period immediately preceding 9.7.1993. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the said order in the present proceedings.