Karan Singh vs Sita Rani

A.P. Chowdhri, J. (Oral)

Sita Rani filed a petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Karan Singh alleging that she had been married with the latter 19/20 years earlier and that the respondent had married again and had neglected to maintain her. The respondent was working in HSEB and earning around Rs. 2,000/. Sita Rani, therefore, prayed for Rs. 500/ per mensum as maintenance. The petition was contested by the respondent, who, inter alia, denied having ever married Sita Rani. Instead he pleaded that he was married to one Darshana Rani, daughter of Narain Dass, and relied upon an entry in the voters'' list in the electoral rolls of 1987 in supports of his plea. On behalf of Sita Rani, it was stated that she was the first wife of Karan Singh, that marriage between them was still subsisting and that as Sita Rani failed to give birth to a child, Karan Singh had married again. She relied upon an entry in the voters'' list of 1982 in which she was mentioned as wife of Karan Singh.

On a consideration of the above material, the learned Magistrate declined to pass in interim order of maintenance by his order dated March 24, 1989. Aggrieved by the order, Sita Rani preferred a revision, which was disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, by order dated July 20,1989. The learned Additional Session Judge relied on the entry in the voters'' list of 1982 and fixed Rs. 100/ per mensum as interim maintenance in favour of Sita Rani. It is against that of the Additional Sessions Judge that the present revision has been filed by the husband.

After going through the orders recorded by the two Courts and after hearing Mr. Saini, learned counsel for the revisionpetitioner, Karan Singh, I can find no merit in the present revision. It could not be explained how an entry can to be made in favour of Sita Rani as wife of Karan Singh in the electoral rolls of 1982. The revisional Court was thus well within its right to have passed the impugned order. No exception can be taken. There is no merit in the revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Mr. Saini stated that no stay was granted and the proceedings are already going on in the trial Court.