Jagjit Singh vs Paramjit Kaur

J. B. Garg, J.

Jagjit Singh of village Dholewal was married to Paramjit Kaur of village Dhadde Fateh Singh, district Hoshiarpur on 19.3.1978. The couple was blessed with a daughter in January, 1980 and with a son in August, 1982. Sometime in 1982, the husband proceeded to Jordan and continued there till June, 1984 where he earned a lot of money and on return, he again started maltreating wife considering that she was not a good looking girl. It has been alleged that all her ornaments and valuables were retained by the husband and the two children as well but she was turned out and is now passing her time at the house of her parents. She claimed maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it remained pending from 6.5.1987 till 9.1.1990 when the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur fixed it at the rate of Rs. 225/.SICK WORD) p.m. The wife felt dissatisfied and she moved a revision and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur has fixed it at the rate of Rs. 350/ p.m. by his order dated 30.8.1990. The aggrieved husband has come to this court and has challenged the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur enhancing the maintenance allowance.

It is an admitted fact that on the one hand, the two children born out of the wedlock are maintained by the husband Jagjit Singh and on the other hand. Paramjit Kaur contested a divorce petition which was moved by the husband and this petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur on 20.3.1987.

The case of the wife had been that the husband is dealing in fertilizers and has been earning about Rs. 5000/ pm. whereas the plea of the husband had been that he was not in business and was now scarcely working as an agricultural labourer. At any rate, it is a case where the husband had been earning while abroad and even on return, he deals in fertilizers and is not a person lacking capacity or the means to earn. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance has be placed on Sudha Rani v. Mahesh Kumar Gupta, 1987(2) RCR 354 but in the aforesaid case three letters written by the wife did not contain anything against the husband and the facts and the circumstances were altogether distinguishable inasmuch as in the present case even a petition for divorce which was moved by the husband against Paramjit Kaur has been dismissed.

After considering the fact that the two children are maintained by the husband, in the circumstances of the Case, the present petition is partly accepted and the impugned order is modified only to the extent that the maintenance shall be payable by the husband at the rate of Rs. 300/ p.m. to the wife.