Amarjit Pal Singh vs Pankaj Puri

A.S. Nehra, J.—Pankaj Puri alias Happy son of Amrit Pal Singh Puri through his mother Smt. Kiran Bala filed an application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance stating that he is minor son of the petitioner; that he was born out of the wedlock of Smt. Kiran Bala and Amrit Pal Singh Puri on 23.2.1980 and is living with his mother Smt. Kiran Bala; that Amrit Pal Singh is employed as sectional officer; that marriage between Kiran Bala and Amrit Pal Singh was solemnized at Ludhiana on 16.1.1979 according to Hindu rites; that at the time of marriage it was not disclosed that Amrit Pal Singh was already married and this fact was known to his mother after marriage; and that Mrs. Kiran Bala also came to know that the petitioner''s first wife has not died natural death. It is also alleged in the application that Mrs. Kiran Bala also learnt the Amrit Pal Singh remained in Jail for some weeks and, therefore, she got herself transferred to Patiala and at Patiala Amrit Pal Singh said that he did not want any child from her. It is further alleged that Amrit Pal Singh and his family members asked the doctors for abortion of Mrs. Kiran Bala to which the doctors refused due to advanced stage of pregnancy and that Pankaj Puri was born on 23.2.1980. It is further alleged that after the birth of Pankaj Puri, Amrit Pal Singh and his family members had openly started proclaiming that there was no place for Pankaj Puri at their house and Mrs. Kiran Bala should make arrangements to leave Pankaj Puri with her parents; that even Mrs. Kiran Bala was asked to resign from her job and that the humiliating attitude continued for some months. It is alleged that to get rid of the minor Pankaj Puri and Mrs. Kiran Bala, Amrit Pal Singh managed the transfer of Mrs. Kiran Bala from Patiala to Ludhiana; that she was not allowed to take necessary household articles; that since 3.9.1990 Mrs. Kiran Bala and Pankaj Puri had been living at Ludhiana and Amrit Pal Singh had refused to maintain Pankaj Puri. It is alleged that Amrit Pal Singh besides his salary of Rs. 1500/- per month, had also other sources of income; that he has got plot, house and other property from which he is earning more than Rs. 1500/- per month. Pankaj Puri prayed for grant of Rs. 500/- per month by way of maintenance.

Amrit Pal Singh filed a written statement stating that he has no son by name of Pankaj Puri, rather his son is A. Colin who was born on 23.2.1980 out of wedlock of Smt. Kiran Bala and himself. He admitted that he is employed as a sectional officer. All other allegations were denied by him.

The applicant examined Gursharan Kumar AW1, Surinder Gupta AW2, Jagdish Chand Goel AW3, Manmohan Singh AW4 and Kiran Bala AW5, Gursharan Kumar AW1 has brought the summoned file containing C.R. No. 28497 on 30.6.1979, date of discharge 4.7.1979 and admission register containing entries from CR No. 27053 to 28862 from 25.6.1979 to 4.7.1979. Surinder Kumar AW2 deposed that he is running school in the name of Gupta Model High School in civil lines, Ludhiana and Pankaj Puri was admitted in school and he has charged Rs. 375/- at the time of admission and Rs. 50/- are chargeable as fee, whereas Rs. 40/- was the Rickshaw charges. Jagdish Chand Goel AW3 has brought the service book of the petitioner and copy of pay bill for the month of December, 1983. He has stated that petitioner was drawing Rs. 1300/- per month as total emoluments and his basic pay is Rs. 800/- per month the rate of increment is Rs. 25/-. Manmohan Singh AW4 has brought the summoned record produced in case No. 74 HMA titled Amrit Pal Singh v. Kiran Bala decided by the Court of Sh. R.K. Singal, the then Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 22.10.1993. Kiran Bala AW5 has deposed that she was married with the petitioner at Ludhiana and Pankaj Puri was born out of wedlock of the petitioner and herself on 23.2.1980. She stated that petitioner gets Rs. 1500/- as salary and Rs. 300/- per month as rent from one house and Rs. 1200/- per month from P.S.E.B. as rent for a ''Kothi''. She further stated that petition has also got one plot the value of which is about Rs. 60,000/-. She has admitted that she had filed a case under the Dowry Act against the petitioner which was dismissed. She has admitted that she is getting Rs. 854.80/- paise per month. She has also admitted that there are two F.D.s one is for Rs. 4000/- and other is for Rs. 6000/- which were joint with her parents and have matured. She has taken the money of those F.D.s amounting to Rs. 20,000/- Amrit Pal Singh petitioner appeared as RW1 and has stated that he had married Smt. Kiran Bala on 16.1.1979 and at that time he was aware of his first marriage and also of three childrenfrom that marriage. He has deposed that Mrs. Kiran Bala is drawing her salary amounting to Rs. 950/- per month. Petitioner has further stated that he has to support his three children who are studying in 8th, 7th and 5th class, besides supporting his old parents. His sister is unmarried and living with him. He has deposed that Kiran Bala has moved an application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was rejected. He has further stated that Kiran Bala has to maintain only one child whereas he has to maintain a large family. He has admitted that his total salary of Rs. 2000/-. He has also admitted that his father is retired police sub inspector, but he did not know if he is getting his pension. He has further stated that his sister is unmarried, but he has denied that she is running any school. The application of Pankaj Puri was dismissed on 27th of August, 1985 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana. It was held by the Magistrate that in the modern era a lady cannot escape from discharging her duties and that Since Kiran Bala has sufficient means to maintain the minor, therefore, the application filed by Pankaj Puri is dismissed.

Pankaj Puri aggrieved by the order of the Judicial Magistrate filed a revision petition which was allowed by Additional Sessions Judge on llth December, 1986 and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 300/- per month as maintenance from the date of the application to Pankaj Puri. Petitioner Amrit Pal Singh aggrieved by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge has filed this revision petition.

Petitioner has admitted in his statement as RW1 on 10th of April, 1985 that he is drawing salary of about Rs. 2000/- per month. Father of the petitioner is admittedly a retired police sub inspector and must be getting good amount of pension. There are four brothers of the petitioner who are also in service and are posted at different stations. It is not the liability of the petitioner alone to maintain his parents even if they require any assistance in this behalf. The sister of the petitioner who is residing with, him is 20 years old. She is M.A. and is running a school of more than 100 students. Thus, his sister is also not dependent upon him because she must be earning sufficient income from the school run by her for her maintenance. In these premises it was held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the petitioner is required to maintain only his three children from his first wife and Pankaj Puri.

Petitioner has failed to get a decree of divorce against the mother of Pankaj Puri though he has filed an application u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and fought the case upto the High Court. Petitioner was also litigating to get the custody of Pankaj Puri, but he failed to get the same upto the High Court. No doubt, the mother of Pankaj Puri is employed as a clerk and is earning Rs. 850/- per month as her salary but this circumstance alone shall not be sufficient to disentitle Pankaj Puri minor to the maintenance as prayed by him. The liability of the petitioner u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to maintain his son is not diminished in any manner because he is living with her mother who is also an earning hand. Even if it may be accepted that under the Hindu Law a mother is liable to maintain a child but this principle cannot be applied to the proceedings u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Taking into consideration the income of the petitioner, it could not be held that he has no means to maintain Pankaj Pun his minor son.

The findings of the Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reason and therefore, the same are not liable to be set aside in the revision petition.

In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed,