KULWANT SINGH BHULLAR Vs. SUKHWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by Kulwant Singh Bhullar, husband of Smt. Sukhwant Kaur/respondent No. 1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking the quashing of order dated 3.8.1995 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, copy Annexure P1 and order dated 8.10.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, copy Annexure P2.

(2.) THE petitioner was married with respondent No. 1 on 21.11.1987. Two sons, namely Baljinder Singh and Sukhjinder Singh, were born to the petitioner and respondent No. 1 out of the wed-lock, who have been arrayed as respondents No. 2 and 3 under the guardianship of their mother Smt. Sukhwant Kaur/respondent No. 1. Some differences arose between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 in February, 1993. Respondent No. 1 had gone to her parents' house as her brother became a victim of a snake bite. The petitioner also followed her. At the house of petitioner's parents-in-law, some exchange of hot words took place and the petitioner returned to his home, where he narrated the whole incident to his parents. In March, 1993, engagement of the brother of respondent No. 1 was to take place. Respondent No. 1 went to the house of her parents and took with her the golden bangles weighing about two tolas from the brother's wife and also took a cash amount of Rs. 2,000/- from his mother. It is alleged that respondent No. 1/wife left the house of the petitioner in his absence. The petitioner asked his wife/respondent No. 1 to accompany him to her matrimonial house, but she did not agree. The petitioner, however, took with him his son Baljinder Singh. Respondent No. 1 had assured the petitioner that she would return after about a month's time, but she did not keep the promise and stayed back at her parents' house. The petitioner accompanied by his parents and respectables of the village panchayat went to the house of respondent No. 1. But respondent No. 1 refused to accompany the petitioner.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner is that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate committed grave error in making comments upon the conduct of the petitioner and proceeded to grant maintenance to the respondents despite recording a finding that the respondent No. 1/wife could not prove the demand of dowry. It has been contended that the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate are conjectural and not based on evidence on record. The petitioner/husband filed a revision before the Court of Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, which was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, for disposal. It has been contended that the Additional Sessions Judge did not consider the points which were raised regarding merits of the case and mentioned in the grounds of revision and that he confined his discussion only to the quantum of maintenance. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not consider merits of the claim of the respondent-wife. There is no mention in the impugned order (copy annexure P2) that the counsel for the respondents had anywhere made a statement about his not pressing the revision on merits and that he pressed the revision only on the quantum of maintenance. The petitioner contended that in fact it is the petitioner, who is victim of the situation as the respondent No. 1/wife had herself deserted the petitioner and had treated him with cruelty and for no valid reasons the petitioner has been deprived of her society.