Sant Kaur vs Gurmukh Singh

Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.—Sant Kaur has filed this revision petition against the judgment dated September, 26, 1979, of the learned Additional Judge, Faridkot, who accepted the revision petition of her husband Gurmukh Singh and partly set aside the order dated April 30, 1979, of the learned Magistrate, whereby he had granted the petitioner a sum of Rs 40/- per month as maintenance allowance.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Sant Kaur, petitioner, was married to Gurmukh Singh about 22 years before filing of a petition u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She gave birth to three children, namely Darshan Singh, Maya and Mandar Singh from the loins of Gurmukh Singh. A few months after the birth of Mandar Singh, Gurmukh Singh turned the petitioner and Mandar Singh out of his house after giving her beating because she had not brought a buffalo from her parents on the occasion of the birth of Mandar Singh. She came to her father''s house with her children. Her father took her to Gurmukh Singh''s house and left her there. Thereafter, also Gurmukh Singh continued beating and torturing her. He was pressing her that she should agree to a divorce. On her refusal he used to beat her. On coming to know about the miserable plight of the petitioner, her father brought a Panchayat to the village of Gurmukh Singh and she was taken to her parents'' house. Gurmukh Singh got warrants u/s 97, Code of Criminal Procedure in compliance of which she was taken to his house. However, Gurmukh Singh continued with his cruel behaviour. Finding no other way out, the petitioner''s father got warrants u/s 100, Code of Criminal Procedure, issued for the recovery of the petitioner, whereupon she was again taken to her father''s house. Sant Kaur thereafter filed an application u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month to her and at the rate of Rs. 50/- each to her children, namely Maya and Mandar Singh No application was moved on behalf of Darshan Singh because he was grown up and could look after himself at that time. After a regular trial, the learned Magistrate allowed the petition and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month to Sant Kaur and at the rate of Rs. 25/- each to Maya and Mandar Singh. Gurmukh Singh went up, in revision. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, partly allowed that revision and dismissed the application, in so far as claim of the petitioner for maintenance was concerned. However, he confirmed the maintenance granted to Maya and Mandar Singh. Aggrieved by that order, Sant Kaur has filed this revision petition.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge had set aside the order of the learned Magistrate on two grounds, namely--

(i) the petitioner had neither pleaded nor proved that she was unable to maintain herself ; and

(ii) that the husband had not refused or neglected to maintain her.

Mr. K.S. Doad, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on both the points are illegal and unsustainable. He had drawn my attention to the evidence of Arjan Singh (P.W. 4) who in an unambiguous terms had stated that Sant Kaur used to remain without food and she used to keep her body and soul together with great difficulty. She had no means of livelihood The Learned Counsel also referred to the statement made by Gurmukh Singh, appearing as R.W. 1, wherein he has stated: "Santo and her children had no property of their own". From this statement, it is evident that Santo (Sant Kaur) was unable to maintain herself. The mere fact that Smt. Sant Kaur had not made this assertion in clear terms in her petition u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, and even in her statement made in Court, will not disentitle her from maintenance if there is other evidence on the file to establish that she was unable to maintain herself. The proceedings u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, are of a summary nature. They do not determine the rights and status of the parties. They have been devised to provide sustenance to deserted wives and uncared children, so that they would not become vagrants and also menace to the society. These proceedings are of a quasi criminal nature. The principles of pleadings in plaints and applications, as envisaged by the CPC do not apply to the applications and petitions u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure. One has to approach these applications from a pragmatically angle The statement of Arjan Singh and the admission made by Gurmukh Singh, respondent, himself fully establish that the petitioner has no means and she was unable to maintain herself.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge clearly fell in error when after noticing the findings of the civil court he chose to ignore them. The findings of the civil court are binding on a criminal court. The civil court had held that Sant Kaur was justified in living separately from her husband. The husband had levelled allegations of adultery against his wife Sant Kaur in the petition filed by him u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. These findings have to be honoured. They clearly establish that Gurmukh Singh had deserted the petitioner. Even in the present application he made false allegations against the petitioner that she was residing in the house of one Baldev Singh, but he has not been able to prove this fact. In these circumstances, Sant Kaur was entitled to live separately from Gurmukh Singh, but she was entitled to be maintained.

The learned trial Magistrate had given a finding that the income of Gurmukh Singh was at least Rs. 200/- per month. Keeping in view the escalating cost of living; the amount being paid by Gurmukh Singh to his wife and children; and his income, I feel that it will be just to grant maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/- to the petitioner.