Balbir Singh vs Balwinder Kaur and anr.

G. S. Chahal, J.

Balbir Singh has come up in revision against the order dated August 29, 1989 passed by Additional sessions Judge, Faridkot vide which the order of Shri Baldev Singh Chief Judicial Magistrate was modified and maintenance of Rs. 100/ was awarded to each of the respondents.

Balwinder Kaur the wife and Gurtej Singh and Nirbhai Singh minor children of Balbir Singh, petitioner brought the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance on the ground that Balbir Singh had deserted them and refused to maintain them. The marriage of Balwinder Kaur was solemnised with Balbir Singh about 20 years earlier and out of the wedlock three children were born. The petitioner was addicted to take intoxicating pills and whenever she tried to restrain him, he used to give her beatings. That she had no source of income and was unable to maintain herself and her children.

The petitioner contested the application. The factum of marriage with Balwinder Kaur was not disputed. It was further pleaded that Balwinder Kaur had deserted him of her own and refused to join his society. That he was ready and willing to keep and maintain his wife and children. That Balwinder Kaur left the house without his permission and spent nights with one Kartar Singh and then he objected to her misconduct she left the house with the intention of living with him. He had since married his daughter and one of his son Gurtej Singh has come to live with him.

The Magistrate after appreciating the evidence held Balwinder Kaur not entitled to any maintenance but awarded maintenance of Rs., 150/ to Nirbhai Singh minor. Not satisfied with this order both the parties went in revision which were disposed of by Shri H. R. Nohria, Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide the impugned judgment.

The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that from the very beginning the petitioner had been offering to maintain his wife and children and it was Balwinder Kaur who had preferred to remain away from his matrimonial home. That Balwinder Kaur was unchaste in character and she had been apprehended by the police in proceedings under Section 109 Cr.P.C. and as such she was not entitled to grant of maintenance.

The learned counsel has not been able to show that there was any evidence on record to establish that Balwinder Kaur was living in adultery with Kartar Singh. The fact that Balwinder Kaur was arrested on charge of vagrancy by the police will not per se establish her living in adultery. Since the petitioner has been making allegation of unchastity against his wife his offer to maintain her was far from genuine. No sufficient evidence was brought on record to prove that at any stage prior to the presentation of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the respondents, the petitioner had made genuine effort to bring his wife and minor children to his house. I may also add that with respect to the minor child even if he is being illegally detained away from the father is under an obligation to maintain the child till he recovers his custody.

I find no merit. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.