Mohinder Pal Vs. State and anr. - Court Judgment

S.S. Grewal, J.

1. This criminal misc. petition is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, dated 13-6-1988, whereby, the order of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Nawan Shahr dated 25-2-1987 granting maintenance to Kashmir Kaur to the tune of Rs. 200/- per month from the date of application, was upheld.

2. In brief, the facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, are, that Kashmir Kaur claimed maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from her husband Mohinder Pal, on the ground that she was maltreated by her husband, who did not like her, and proclaimed that she was not from an affluent family. It was also pleaded that after maltreatment, she was turned out from her matrimonial home. Subsequently by misrepresentation and assuring her that he would behave properly, he brought her back to his home. In a fraudulent manner got her signatures on certain blank papers, and, again turned her out from his house.

3. This petition was opposed by the husband on the ground that his wife started living in adultery, and, a divorce was mutually sought Other averments in the petition were denied.

4. Counsel for the parties were heard.

5. Counsel for the revision-petitioner mainly contended that both the Courts below have not dealt with the evidence produced by the petitioner to prove that his wife was living in adultery. It is true that both the Courts below were swayed on this point because of non-examination of the husband, who, is stated to have gone abroad. His father and attorney did appear in the witness box, and, supported the charge of adultery levelled against her daughter-in-law. The fact remains that according to the medical certificate Ex. R1 dated 26-9-1985 wife had four months' pregnancy, when she was got examined at the primary health centre, as deposed to by Mrs. Baldev Kaur PW 1. This certificate would indicate that wife became pregnant in May 1985, or, there about. Perusal of the written statement filed by the husband would indicate that he had returned from abroad in March 1985 and stayed with his wife till divorce dead was got executed on 30-9-85. These circumstances, clearly prove that there is no legal, cogent or reliable evidence on the record that the husband had no access to his wife during the period she became pregnant. Apart from that, there is no other reliable evidence on the record, to prove the allegations of adultery levelled against the wife by the husband. The latter has thus failed to prove these allegations affirmatively, and this itself would constitute sufficient cause for the wife to live separately from her husband.

6. Faced with this situation, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner-husband that the wife in her statement before the trial Court admitted that she bad not signed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., nor, she has appended her signatures on the power of attorney filed in this case. No objection regarding the maintainability of the petition was raised either, in, the trial Court or, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. This point cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in this Court.

7. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.