LAWS(HPH)-1984-3-9

MEELA DEVI Vs. GAJINDER SINGH

Decided On March 05, 1984
MEELA DEVI Appellant
V/S
GAJINDER SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On her OWD behalf and as a guardian of her minor son, the petitioner Smt. Meela Devi made an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kinnaur at Kalpa claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per men-sem against the respondent. The case of the petitioner was that she was married to the respondent in April 1169 and out of the- wedlock two children were born The first one was a female child who expred soon after the birth. The second was a male child who is petitioner No.2 and was it years of age at the time of filing of the petition which was filed in 1974.

(2.) The original petition said to have been filed in 1974 is not on the record. Mrs. Malabotra the learned Counsel for the petitioner, read out the same in court from her own record, As per averments made in this petition the petitioner was married to the responded in April 1909. Two children, one female and one male, were born out of this wedlock. The female child died soon after the birth whereas the male child is petitioner No I. The further averments made 10 the petition are that the responded treated the petitioner well for some time after the marriage but later on started maltreating her and ultimately turned her out of the house This is stated to have been done by the respondent as he had brought another lady in the house. The petitioner then approached the Court of the Sub Divisional Kinnaur for claiming maintenance against the respondent In those proceedings before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the respondent accused that he would maintain the petitioner and the matter thus ended in a compromise. The respondent, however did not honour his commitment made before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. hence the present petition.

(3.) The respondent denied if the petitioner was ever married to him or if he bad any connection with her. He also denied if any child was born to the petitioner by him. The respondent further denied if there were any prepous proceeding between the panies in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kinnaur as alleged as the petition.