SURJEET KAUR Vs. HARDAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Sri Ganganagar, dated 28.3.1987 whereby the order passed by Munsif Magistrate dated 27.3.1986 was quashed and he has allowed the revision filed by Hardam Singh and dismissed the revision of the petitioners.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 27.7.1980, the petitioner moved an application for demand of maintenance on the allegation that she is wife of the non-petitioner Hardam Singh, who gave birth to a male child Iqbal Singh. It was also alleged that trouble started when the non- petitioner brought his first wife Basant Kaur at home. He gave beating to the petitioner and turned out her from the house and thus she claimed Rs. 500/- as maintenance for her and her child. The non-petitioner contested the application and denied the fact that he ever married with the petitioner and no maintenance cart be granted as she does not fall within the purview of Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court has held that the non petitioner has sufficient means and awarded Rs. 200/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner on 27.3.1983 from the date of the filing of the application but refused to grant maintenance to the petitioner No.2 Iqbal Singh on the ground that he has attained 18 years of age. Being aggrieved by the order, both the petitioner Smt. Surjeet Kaur and Iqbal Singh and the non-petitioner No.1 Hardam Singh filed revisions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision of the non-petitioner No.1 Hardam Singh and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners. Being aggrieved by this order the petitioners have come up before this Court.

(3.) Mr. B.N. Kalla, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has married with the non-petitioner and they lived together for the last 14 years and gave birth to the petitioner No.2 Iqbal Singh, who was studying in Vilith Class. He has further submitted that the petitioner and the non-petitioner lived together as husband and wife and were treated as such, therefore, by not drawing the presumption that the petitioner is legally wedded wife, it amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. He has also submitted that it is not within the knowledge of the petitioner that the non-petitioner was already married and has his first wife. He has further submitted that the courts below have erred in not granting maintenance to the petitioner No.2 Iqbal Singh. He placed reliance on Narotam Kumar v. Sucha Santa, Thanda Suraiah v. Thanda Sharada , and Krishna Kanta Nath v. Kanchan Bala .