HARNAM SINGH Vs. GURMAIL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gurmail Kaur, respondent No. 1, was married with Kundha Singh, respondent No. 2 Gurdip Singh, petitioner No. 2, who is a minor, is their son. The relations between the respondents became strained and an application under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, was filed by Gurmail Kaur against her husband. During the pendency of those proceedings a compromise was arrived at between the parties. Kundha Singh paid Rs. 24,000/- to Gurmail Kaur in lieu of which the latter gave up her right of maintenance under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure. It was agreed that their minor son Gurdip Singh, petitioner No. 2 will reside with his grandfather Harnam Singh, petitioner No. 1. Kundha Singh was directed to pay Rs. 150/- per month to the minor as maintenance. It so transpired that the minor continued to reside with his mother Gurmail Kaur. The latter filed an execution application for recovery of maintenance on behalf or her minor son. In those proceedings Harnam Singh petitioner filed an objection petition challenging the right of Gurmail Kaur to file the execution application on behalf of the minor. The objection petition was dismissed by the executing Court on October 9, 1985. The revision against this order filed by Harnam Singh was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, on April 26, 1986. Harnam Singh, on his own and as guardian of the minor Gurdip Singh, has filed the present petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the aforesaid order of the executing Court as well as of the revisional Court. He has prayed that he should be allowed to recover the maintenance allowance on behalf of the minor.

(2.) There is no dispute that when maintenance allowance of Rs. 150/- per month was fixed by the Court in favour of the minor Gurdip Singh. It was agreed that the minor will live with his grandfather Harnam Singh petitioner. If this agreement had been implemented and the minor had started living with his grandfather then Gurmail Kaur would not have been competent to file execution application on behalf of the minor. However, it has been found by the Courts below that the minor continued to live with his mother. The grandfather did not make any effort to take him to his house to reside with him. In these circumstances it is the mother, who is bringing up the minor son as the natural guardian, who is entitled to file the execution application to recover the maintenance allowance on behalf of her son. The grandfather Harnam Singh does not come into picture at all. Though the compromise had been made during the pendency of the application under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, that the minor will live with him but this agreement was never implemented. Hence, on the basis of an agreement which was not implemented, Harnam Singh cannot claim the right of filing the execution application to recover maintenance allowance on behalf of the minor. The courts below have, therefore, rightly rejected his objection-petition.

(3.) In the light of what is stated above, there is no merit in this petition and it is hereby dismissed.