Jatinder Pal Singh Constable No.7/723,7th Bn PAP. vs Satwant Kour

Perused the file. It appears through the medium of petition in hand under section 561A Cr. P.C the petitioner Jatinder Pal Singh husband has

sought indulgence of this court for quashing the order recorded by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu dated 281 10/2000 in a

revision petition no.42 titled as 'Jatinder Pal Singh Vs. Satwant Kour & another'.

It appears that Satwant Kour respondent/petitioner wife on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor child Guneet Kour approached learned

Munsiff Judicial Magistrate 1st Class R.S. Pura for grant of maintenance allowance under section 488 Cr. P.C. alleging therein inter alia that she is

married to the petitioner/respondent, out of this wedlock a female child was born and the marriage took place at village Simbla Morh, Tehsil R.S.

Pura on 19/10/1997 in accordance with Sikh customs. That the petitioner husband has neglected her or well as his minor child respondent no.2

who is living with her. Alongside, a petition for grant of interim maintenance also came to be filed.

The learned Inquiry Magistrate al lowed the said application for interim maintenance and awarded an amount of Rs. 1.000/to respondent no. 1

and Rs.500/ to respondent no.2 from the date of filing of the application till the final disposal of the main petition. This order came to be challenged

by the petitioner/respondent before the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in revision solely on the ground that the learned

Additional Civil Judge Jallandhar has passed an exparte decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of petitioner/respondents and against

respondent wife holding that the wife has left the society of the husband without any reasonable excuse. By virtue of impugned order the learned

1st Additional Sessions Judge rejected the revision petition.

I have considered the impugned order. It appears from the certified copy of the order passed by the leaned Inquiry Magistrate that the

respondent/petitioner in her petition under Section 488 Cr. P.C. had inter alias stated that the marriage in between her and the

petitioner/respondent took place on 19/10/1997 at Simbal Morh. Tehsil R.S. Pura. This fact does not appear to have been denied by the

petitioner/respondent in his objections to the said petitioner before the Inquiry Magistrate. The Division Bench of this Court under the Jammu &

Kashmir Hindu Marriage Act and the Hindu Marriage Act(Central) in a case titled as 'K. Radha Krishan Nayyar Vs. Smt. Radha' A.I.R Jammu &

Kashmir 1, has observed that:

In view of the finding on point no.1 it is held that the persons who were governed by the State Act at the time of marriage and whose marriage

was solemnized within the State of Jammu & Kashmir, can get a relief only in the State and not in any other Court in the Country under the Central

Act unless both the parties have settled and have domicile of a place to which the State Act is not applicable but the Central Act applies. In that

case, the provisions of subs.(iv) of S.21 of the State Act and suns.(iv) of S.19 of the Central Act would not apply. For the purpose of attracting

the provision of subs (iv) and the applicability of the Central and the State Acts, the place of solemnization of the marriage, is important and

relevant.

Since the marriage in between the petitioner and the respondent took place at Simbal Morh, Tehsil R.S. Pura, Jammu, therefore, the learned

Civil Judge Jallandar has no jurisdiction to grant decree for Restitution of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act (Central) infavour of the

petitioner husband and against the respondent wife because there is nothing on file to show that the wife has become domicile of Jallandhar to

which State Act is not applicable.

Besides this, the presence of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against wife, she can still claim maintenance if the conduct of the husband

is such as obstructs her to obey such a decree. This question as to whether the wife respondent has willfully disobeyed the decree of restitution of

conjugal rights passed against her in exparte by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Jallandhar is a question' of fact which cannot be commented

upon in this petition.

Viewed thus the order impugned in this petition does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety and does not amount to the abuse of the process

of court or in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the petition in hand is not sustained and the same is dismissed.