LAWS(P&H)-1997-5-18

HARWINDER KAUR Vs. GURSEWAK SINGH ALIAS SEWA SINGH

Decided On May 29, 1997
HARWINDER KAUR Appellant
V/S
GURSEWAK SINGH @ SEWA SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harwinder Kaur petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code against respondent Gursewak Singh. She prayed for maintenance. In the said'application she had averred that she was married to the respondent about 27 years' back. Anand Karaj Ceremony was performed in Village Ladwanzara Kalan. The marriage was solemnized on the day her elder sister was married with Jagan Singh. The said Jagan Singh is the elder brother of the respondent. Since at the time of marriage, the petitioner was very young in age, the Muklawa Ceremony was not performed. Muklawa Ceremony was performed about 9 years back. Thereafter she started living with the respondent as his wife. After one month, she was being taunted and malt reated that the petitioner was not beautiful and had not brought enough dowry. She was beaten mercilessly. Finally, she was turned out of the house. A panchayat comprising of Hardial Singh, Gurdial Singh besides others approached the respondent so that she could be rehabilitated. It had no good effect. It was alleged that she had been neglected and the respondent has refused to maintain her. Thus, the maintenance was claimed.

(2.) Needless to say that in the reply filed, the petition has been contested. The respondent controverted the allegations of the petitioner. It was alleged that petitioner had earlier filed an application which was dismissed. He further contended that as per the petitioner, at the time of the marriage, the respondent could only be of 2 years of age. It was denied that petitioner has married the respondent. The question of demanding the dowry and giving her beatings did not arise.

(3.) The learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur on appraisal of the evidence held that the marriage had been solemnized between the parties. It was further held that the respondent had nut maintained his wife and has deserted her. The petitioner was held liable to seek maintenance. The maintenance was awarded at Rs. 200/-p.m. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred a revision petition in the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur held that the parties were not married with each other and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to maintenance. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the present revision petition has been filed.