Bhupinder Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for production of Smt. Kuldip Kaur, stated to be the wife of the Petitioner. Kuldip Kaur appeared in this Court on 2.2.2011 and the statements of the parties were recorded separately and this Court on 2.2.2011 passed the following order:

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that Kuldip Kaur, wife of the Petitioner, be produced in this Court and be set free as she has been unlawfully detained by her brother Harnek Singh.

Kuldip Kaur is present in this Court. She stated that the Petitioner is already married, therefore, she intended to stay in her parental house and do not want to accompany the Petitioner. The statement of parties have been recorded separately, which may be read as a part of this order.

It is a case of marital discord. Time is a great healer. There is every possibility that the parties may reconcile and save the marriage. Whether Bhupinder is already married or not is a disputed question of fact, which can be determined by the Court of competent jurisdiction. The Petitioner stated that he will deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000 towards the maintenance and continue to pay Rs. 7,000 per month as maintenance towards his wife and child. The bonafide of the Petitioner is required to be tested.

To enable the Petitioner to deposit a draft of Rs. 50,000, in the name of his wife Kuldip Kaur, adjourned to 17.2.2011.

Statement of the parties recorded on February 2, 2011 may also be read as part of this order.

Today, to show his bona fide, the Petitioner has produced two demand drafts amounting to Rs. 20,000/-and Rs. 30,000/-respectively, totaling Rs. 50,000/-drawn in favour of Kuldip Kaur. These drafts have been handed over to Kuldip Kaur. The Court, where the maintenance application u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure is pending, shall take into account the payment made to Kuldip Kaur by way of these drafts.

Effort made to resolve the dispute amicably has borne no fruit. Kuldip Kaur again has stated in categorical terms that she does not intend to accompany the Petitioner and she is living in her parental house according to her own free will.In this view of the matter, no direction can be issued in the writ petition filed for habeas corpus. The petition is dismissed.

The parties may, however, have recourse to lawful remedy available to them.