Gurbej Singh @ Bheja vs Paramjit Kaur and others

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of Order dated 26.04.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby, the Court below has upheld the Order dated 27.05.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa granting interim maintenance to the respondent-wife u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C.

While relying on the judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court titled as Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, and the judgments of this Court rendered in the case titled as Parkash Bhutani vs. Ramma reported as 2002(3) RCR (Criminal) 475 and the case titled as Smt. Sarla Verma vs. Vinod Verma reported as 2003 (3) RCR(Criminal) 664, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the woman, who is not the legally wedded wife, is not entitled for maintenance and that the respondent No. 1, herein, even though having entered into Rs. Kareva'' marriage is not the legally wedded wife.

Taking up the judgment of this Court titled as Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), the same is not applicable in the facts of the present case as in that case, the wife could not prove nor was there any evidence of her valid marriage. Since, the factum of marriage could not be proved, it was held that the question of applicability of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C did not arise.

The judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court titled as Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya (supra) as relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, too, is not applicable as in that case, it was held that a marriage of a woman in accordance with Hindu rites with a man having a living spouse is a complete nullity and such a woman is therefore not entitled to the benefit of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

The third judgment of this Court as relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner titled as Parkash Bhutani (supra), too, does not help the petitioner as in that case, the woman was claiming maintenance u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C without getting divorce from her first husband. Whereas, in the present case, it is not disputed that the respondent No. 1 is the widow of late Nirmal Singh. Late Nirmal Singh was the brother of the present petitioner. The question of not getting divorce from Nirmal Singh does not arise as he had expired and she was the widow. It is also not disputed that she had entered into Rs. Kareva'' marriage with the petitioner who was the brother of her late husband. The petitioner does not have any living spouse. As such, the Rs. Kareva'' marriage being recognized as per the Customary Law prevalent, the argument that she is not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, does not arise.

The argument that the respondent No. 2 is not the daughter of the petitioner and, therefore, she is not liable to grant maintenance, too, has no merit as the petitioner had entered into Rs. Kareva'' marriage with respondent No. 1 knowing fully well that she had a minor child. He is, thus, responsible for both of them. It is not disputed that respondents No. 1 and 2 are not able to maintain themselves. Thus, this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner also has no merit and the same, too, is rejected.

The revision petition already stand dismissed. The present petition u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C is nothing but a second revision petition under the garb of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. No injustice has been caused to the petitioner which may enable this Court to interfere.

Dismissed both on the ground of maintainability and merits.