Sampuran Singh vs Balbir Kaur

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Respondentwife Balbir Kaur married petitioner Sampuran Singh on 12th October, 1972. The parties lived together after marriage for a period of 4 years in village Vada Nag district Amritsar. A male child was born from the wedlock. Thereafter the petitioner started maltreating and beating the respondent, contracted another marriage with Kulwant Kaur daughter of Dewan Singh and had another male child from her as well and deserted and refused to maintain the respondent. In her application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, respondentwife claimed separate maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/ per mensum. Her application was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, on 3rd August, 1984. In revision learned Additional Sessions Judge vide assailed order dated 1st March, 1985 granted her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75/ per mensem from the date of her original application before the learned trial court. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, husbandpetitioner has filed Criminal Revision No. 608 of 1985 in this Court.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the husbandpetitioner that the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the petitioner had deserted the respondent without reasonable cause and therefore maltreated her in based on conjectures and is in no way borne out from the record. The argument is of no avail because the learned trial court as also the learned Additional Sessions Judge have both misconstrued the evidence brought on record by the respondentwife before them.

Smt. Balbir Kaur, AW1, categorically asserted before the learned trial court that the petitionerhusband had married another wife named Kulwant Kaur about 6 years back. Her father, Gurbachan Singh AW 2, also asserted on 2nd June, 1986 before the learned trial court that the petitionerhusband had married another woman named Kulwant Kaur. No crossexamination whatsoever was at all directed against the respondentwife or her father on this score. Credit and veracity of the depositions made by wife Balbir Kaur and her father Gurbachan Singh thus remained unassailed and have, therefore, to be accepted on their face value. It is moreover, not understood as to how could the learned trial court as also the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, record a negative finding against respondent wife in this behalf and hold Balbir Kaur (respondent to this court) disentitled from claiming separate maintenance on grounds of the petitionerhusband having contracted another marriage during her life time. There has thus been miscarriage and failure of justice. There is no ground to interfere with the order of maintenance passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in favour of respondentwife on 1st March, 1985. In result the Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fee assessed at Rs. 250/.