MALKIAT KAUR Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I shall dispose of two petitions i.e. CRM-M23262-2014 filed by petitioner Malkiat Kaur and CRM-M-18329-2015 filed by petitioner Ranjit Singh.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that applicant Malkiat Kaur had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against respondent Ranjit Singh for grant of monthly maintenance allowance on the averments that she was earlier married with Amarjit Singh, an elder brother of respondent Ranjit Singh and she gave birth to two sons, namely, Kuldeep Singh and Manjit Singh from that wedlock; that unfortunately Amarjit Singh died in the year 1989 and after his death, applicant was re-married with Ranjit Singh and thereafter they started residing together as husband and wife; that after their marriage, the respondent got recruited as Constable in Punjab Police, then he started demanding dowry from the parents of the applicant; that when such demands could not be fulfilled, the respondent used to give beatings to the applicant and he also threatened to get re-married; that the respondent took gold ornaments and other valuable articles from the applicant but refused to keep and maintain her. The applicant pleaded that she was not having any property moveable or immovable and was not having any source of income, whereas respondent being an able bodied person and working as Constable in Punjab Police drawing pay of Rs. 8,000/- per month had neglected and refused to maintain her.

(3.) That application was contested by respondent submitting that the applicant is not his legally wedded wife, as such, is not entitled to claim any maintenance from him. According to the respondent, he was married with Paramjit Kaur daughter of Gurdev Singh of village Chathewala and is residing with her. The respondent submitted that after death of Amarjit Singh, his widow Malkiat Kaur applicant, is residing separately along with her children; that Malkiat Kaur had moved a complaint against him on which a departmental inquiry was conducted and the allegations that respondent had contracted second marriage with Paramjit Kaur were found to be false. He prayed for dismissal of the application.