Jashandeep Singh vs Pardeep Singh

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") for setting aside the judgment dated 14.09.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Petitioner had filed an application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure through his mother claiming maintenance from the respondent.

The case of the parties as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in paras 3 and 4 of the impugned order reads as under:

Initially, Jashandeep Singh, had filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. thereby seeking maintenance from Pardeep Singh. It is averred in the application that Satinder Kaur was married with the respondent about 5 years back. However, she was turned out of the matrimonial house by the respondent, after subjecting her to beatings. Satinder Kaur as well as her son Lovedeep Singh, born to her from her previous marriage, had filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against respondent Pardeep Singh, which is still pending in the Court of Addl. CJM, Barnala. Also, it is averred that on 24.7.2006 at about 7.00 PM, when the mother of the applicant namely Satinder Kaur was going to fetch milk from the dairy, then respondent Pardeep Singh and his cousin, Jasvir Singh met her on the way. They were in possession of motor cycle. The respondent won the confidence of Satinder Kaur vis-a-vis her rehabilitation in the matrimonial house and under this assurance, they took Satinder Kaur, in a house at Dhillon Nagar, Barnala. The said house was under construction. The respondent without the consent of Satinder Kaur, committed rape upon her, with the connivance of Jasvir Singh. Thereafter, the respondent and Jasvir Singh extended threats to Satinder Kaur, to involve her in a false cases, in case she disclosed about the occurrence to anyone. They also threatened to finish her life, as the respondent is serving as ASI in the police department. At the time of occurrence, he was posted in Police District, Jagraon and now he is posted at Raikot. Further, it is averred that Satinder Kaur disclosed the matter to P.S. Kotwali, Barnala at about 11.00 PM about her having been kept in illegal custody of the respondent till 11.00 PM. The police had asked Satinder Kaur to get the rapat lodged against the respondent on the next morning. Also, it is averred that on 25.7.2006, at about 8.00 AM, when Satinder Kaur was going to leave her son Lovedeep Singh and niece Jaspreet Kaur to school, then respondent Pardeep Singh and Jasvir Singh met her on the way. They felt sorry for their conduct, on the previous night. They also requested her to accompany them and assured her rehabilitation and they will withdraw all the cases pending against her. The mother of the applicant, Satinder Kaur, with the hope of rehabilitation believed the respondent, who then took her to the house No. B-XI/1708 Shakti Nagar, Barnala, where Bhindi, who was uncle of the respondent No. 1, was already present. All of them gave beatings to the mother of the applicant and the neighbourers saved her from their clutches. One Jagrup Singh, son of Jagar Singh, resident of Gobind Colony, Barnala also came at the spot. The matter was reported to the police, but however, the respondent in order to save himself took Satinder Kaur, alongwith him, at Barnala and rehabilitated in the matrimonial house. While the mother of the applicant and the respondent were residing together, she became pregnant and the applicant was conceived from their cohabitation. When the mother of the applicant was five months'' pregnant, the respondent forcibly turned her out of the matrimonial house, after subjecting her to beatings. The applicant was born on 2.5.2007 at premature baby at DMC and Hospital, Ludhiana, where an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was incurred by his mother. The respondent never came to see them in the hospital nor rendered any assistance. Now, the mother of the applicant is residing separate from the respondent and the applicant is an indigent person. On the other hand, the respondent is an able bodied person and is serving as ASI in Punjab Police. His salary is Rs. 15,000/- per month.

In reply to the main application, the respondent has disputed the fact of marriage having taken place between him as well as mother of the applicant, namely, Satinder Kaur. He also denied about having any knowledge of Satinder Kaur, having son from him. On merits, the factum of marriage between Satinder Kaur and the respondent has been denied. Also, it is denied that the applicant Jashandeep Singh is his son. Rather, he has alleged to be still unmarried. Also, taking away Satinder Kaur on 24.7.2006 at 7.00 PM alongwith Jasvir Singh and having committed rape upon Satinder Kaur, has been denied. Same is stated to be a false and concocted story. Further, it is averred that Satinder Kaur was married to Tarsem Singh, son of Bachan Singh on 15.9.1998. She had filed petition u/s 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against Tarsem Singh, which was decided by the Court of Sh. Bua Jee Sansi, learned Addl. District Judge, Barnala vide judgment dated 1.3.2005 vide which, her marriage with Tarsem Singh was dissolved. As such, during the subsistence of her marriage with Tarsem Singh, there was no question of remarriage of Satinder Kaur with the respondent. Further, it has also been averred that Satinder Kaur had filed earlier an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against Tarsem Singh, which was decided on 7.10.2005. Prior to the present application, she had filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 14 dated 31.3.2004 which was decided on 3.6.2005 against Pardeep Singh. Further, it is averred that both the said applications had been filed by Satinder Kaur, at one and the same time against two different persons. Even wrong addresses of the respondent are stated to have been furnished by Satinder Kaur. Besides the same, Satinder Kaur had also filed petition under Sections 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against Tarsem Singh and in the same, she had averred about efforts made for her rehabilitation with Tarsem Singh in the month of June, 2003. Further, in August 2004, also they had filed affidavits to this effect in the said petition and this also shows about her allegations of marriage with the respondent to be false one.

The case of the petitioner is that she was minor son of the respondent and had been born to the respondent and Satinder Kaur out of their wedlock. Hence respondent was duty bound to maintain the petitioner. However, it has been observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned order dated 14.09.2009 that Satinder Kaur herself claimed that she had undergone Panchayati divorce in the year 2001 and had got married with Pardeep Singh in the year 2002. Satinder Kaur had filed a petition u/s 12/13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against her first husband Tarsem Singh. The said petition was field on 14.08.2004 and was registered as HMA Case No. 82 dated 14.08.2004. The said petition was decreed by Additional District Judge, Barnala on 01.03.2005. Satinder Kaur herself had stated in the said petition that efforts regarding rehabilitation had been made in the month of June 2003. The said fact was again deposed by her when she appeared in the witness box. Satinder Kaur also mentioned in the petition that she along with her mother had approached Tarsem Singh for rehabilitation in the month of August, 2004. The said fact was duly corroborated by the mother of Satinder Kaur while appearing in the witness box. Satinder Kaur moved a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against Tarsem Singh on 16.08.2004 and the same was decided on 03.06.2005. Satinder Kaur also filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against Pardeep Singh on 07.11.2005 and the same is still pending. In the said application Satinder Kaur has stated regarding the birth of the petitioner as a result of her cohabitation with Pardeep Singh. In these circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly came to the conclusion that Satinder Kaur has taken contradictory pleas and in these circumstances it would not be safe to allow interim maintenance to the petitioner. The case required evidence to be led by the parties in support of their respective pleas as to whether the petitioner is the son of Pardeep Singh or Tarsem Singh.

Petitioner has already availed the remedy of revision against the order passed by the trial court.

In the present case no miscarriage of justice has resulted which would warrant interference by this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Dismissed.