Karam Singh vs Karamjit Kaur

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

PetitionerKaram Singh was married to Karamjit Kaur on October 15, 1991. They were blessed with a child Sahil (respondent No. 2). Karamjit Kaur filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code) asserting that after six months of the marriage, the petitioner and his mother had started torturing her and made demand for more dowry. RespondentKaramjit Kaur could not meet their demands pertaining to the dowry. In April, 1993, she was beaten and turned out of the matrimonial house. Petitioner was alleged to be earning Rs. 2500/ per month while working as a mason.

Needless to say that petitioner contested the application and took up the plea that he had divorced Smt. Karamjit Kaur in accordance with the customary law of the parties. It was further alleged that he was working as a labourer and earned only Rs. 600/700 per month while respondent No. 1 was earning about Rs. 1,000/ per month by stitching clothes.

The learned Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 400/ per month and Rs. 200/ per month as interim maintenance to respondent 1 and respondent 2 respectively till such time the main petition under Section 125 of the Code is disposed.

None appeared for the petitioner despite repeated listing of the Revision Petition. Necessarily in these circumstances, the petition had to be disposed of on appraised of the available record.

While plea had been taken that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 had been dissolved as per customary rights, but still there is precious little on the record to show that there existed any such custom between the parties to enable them to dissolve the marriage and effect divorce. No such writing even was produced. Prima facie for purposes of this order it cannot, therefore, be held that such assertion had any substance or force.

The only other claim as is apparent from the record alleged was that the petitioner was not in a position to pay Rs. 400/ and Rs. 200/ as maintenance per month respectively to the respondents. It goes without saying that the petitioner is an ablebodied person. While respondent No. 1 claims that he is working as a mason but being an ablebodied person, he is under a legal obligation to maintain his wife and the child. Bare minimum, keeping in view the recent inflation in the cost of living, has to be provided. The learned trial Court has rightly exercised his judicial discretion which requires no interference.

For these reasons, the petition fails and is dismissed.