PURAN CHAND Vs. BAGAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 6.5.2003 passed by the teamed Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala whereby the order dated 5.12.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur dismissing the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) filed by the respondent claiming maintenance has been set aside and the respondent has been awarded monthly maintenance of Rs -400/.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the respondent filed an applicant for grant of maintenance to her under Section 25 of the Code against the petitioner. Her case as made out in the applicant is that she was married to the petitioner in February, 1943 and a daughter was bom out of the wedlock in the year 1950, however, thereafter the respondent was removed out of the matrimonial house. Parties reconciled at a later stage. However, 28 years before the respondent was again driven out of her matrimonial house. Presently she is living with her daughter and has no source of income and is unable to maintain herself whereas the petitioner has monthly income of more than Rs. 12,000/ - from his sources including 30 kanals of land which he owns It is further averred that the petitioner had wilfully neglected the refused to maintain the respondent Hence, the application claiming maintenance in the sum of Rs 500/ -per month.

(3.) The petitioner contested the applicant aid his reply raised the preliminary objections that the applicant was not maintainable and the respondent had no locus standi to file the application. On merits, all averments in the applicant had deputed and denied including the claim of the respondent that the marriage was solemnized between the parties and any issue was bom out of the marriage. It has been claimed that the respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, ft has also been averred that the petitioner is an aged person of 75 years and unable to work and is entirely dependant on his chicken bom out of his living wife Sandi Devi for his own maintenance. The claim of the respondent has been, this, denied as whole.