Gian Chand vs Mohinder Devi and anr.

S.S. Rathor, J.

Respondent Mohinder Devi filed a petition under section 125 Cr. PC claiming maintenance for herself and her minor son namely Manjit in terms of section 125 Cr.PC. The trial Court recorded positive findings that respondent Mohinder Devi was legally wedded wife of Gian Chand petitioner and she gave birth to a son namely Manjit from the loins of Gian Chand petitioner after they wore lawfully wedded. Further, a finding was recorded that the respondent & have been neglected and they are entitled to maintenance to the extent of Rs. 100/ each. This order of the trial Court is dated 381988 (Annexure P1).

Feeling dissatisfied, Gian Chand petitioner filed a revision petition which was disposed of in due course by Shri J.C. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide order dated 6.4.1989 (Annexure P2). While partly allowing the revision petition, the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded a finding that Mohinder Devi of course was lawfully wedded wife but she was not entitled to maintenance as she was getting a pension being widow of a Army Personnel and he was getting about Rs. 324/ as monthly pension. However, order of maintenance qua Manjit the minor, on of the petitioner was maintained and now in this petition petitioner has challenged the order of the Court below with an endeavour that minor child also should not get any maintenance.

Mr. Dadwal has candidly argued that Manjit is not the son of the petitioner and as such he is not entitled to any maintenance from the petitioner being his minor son. I am unable to entertain this argument at this stage. The trial Court has recorded positive findings on the basis of appreciation of the evidence and admission made in a petition under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act (Ex. A1) wherein in para No. 3 of the said petition he has admitted that after his marriage with respondent No. 1, she gave birth to a male child. It is not the case that respondent Mohinder Devi is having more than one son. Over and above this, whether respondent No. 2, Manjit is the son of the petitioner or not, is a pure question of fact. This finding of fact has been arrived at after just appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and 1 feel no necessity of interfering in this finding. Even this finding has not been challenged before the Revisional Court (Addl. Sessions Judge,Hoshiarpur). There is no mention in the order passed by the Revisional Court that any plea was raised. Even in the grounds of the petition before this Court no such challenge has been made. So looking from any angle, the petitioner cannot be allowed to agitate this point at this belated stage without pleading the same in the petition before this Court under section 482 Cr. PC.

No other point has been urged and I find no scope for interference in the order passed by the Revisional Court. Hence this petition is dismissed.

Mr. Dadwal at the fag end of arguments contended that at present respondent No. 1 is getting more than 500/ monthly pension being widow of Chaman Lal and is also serving in some school. This fact is not relevant to look into the legality and propriety of the impugned order in question. He is bound to pay the amount of maintenance granted in terms of the impugned order challenged in this petition. However, he is at liberty to move a separate petition under section 127(2) Cr. PC for modification of these orders in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT accordingly.