DHARMENDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 19.03.2008 (Annexure-P-1), passed the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, and the order dated 08.12.2009 (Annexure-P-2), passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat.

(2.) AN application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was preferred by respondent No. 2/wife and respondent No. 3/minor son of the petitioner for grant of maintenance. It is an admitted position that Smt. Santosh/respondent No. 2 was married with the petitioner Dharmender on January 22, 1999. Out of the wedlock, a male child was born, who is respondent No. 3, namely, Rohit, who is now ten years old. The mother and son, i.e. respondents No. 2 and 3 are living separately at the matrimonial home of respondent No. 2. The father of respondent No. 2 is employed as a peon with Food Supplies Department and her brother is a dairyman. The birth of the male child took place at the parental home of respondent No. 2 and all the expenses were borne by her father. Nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner to suggest that respondent No. 2 has any source of income. Since respondents No. 2 and 3 have no source of income and the petitioner was the person on whom they were dependent, who was not ready to take her as is apparent from the fact that there being strained relations between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 since the very beginning of the marriage and instead of filing a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of Conjugal Rites, he straight away preferred a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. This shows that the petitioner wanted to get rid of respondent No. 2. A decree of divorce was passed in favour of the petitioner, but on an appeal preferred by respondent No. 2/wife in the High Court, the operation of the impugned judgment and decree passed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act stands stayed.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case.