Veena Kumari vs Kashmir Singh

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.—Smt. Veena Kumari petitioner filed an application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial Court claiming maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from her husband Kashmir Singh respondent. In the application, it was averred that Kashmir Singh was married with some other woman and that he effected marriage with her deceitfully. It is further maintained that the husband is maltreating her and refused to maintain her.

The husband in his reply to the parent petition simply denied his marriage with the petitioner but kept silent about his marriage with some other woman. The husband raised a preliminary objection before the trial Court regarding the maintainability of this application that only a legally wedded wife could claim maintenance allowance from her husband. The trial Court, however, kept this objection open on the ground that the parties had yet to lead evidence in support of their averments. The husband then went in revision before the Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur and the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide his order dated 7-3-1989 accepted the objection of the husband regarding the maintainability of the parent petition and dismissed the petition pending before the trial Court by holding that it was not maintainable.

Mr. G.S. Grewal, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner may have averred the factum of first marriage on some misgiving and that she is prepared to withdraw this stand. He further maintains that as the husband has not specifically controverted the factum of his first marriage with some other woman, it is a fit case where the parties should be allowed an opportunity to lead their evidence in support of the respective case. Mr. S.S. Sahi, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, maintains that in Ground No. 2 of the present petition also, the petitioner had specifically averred that Kashmir Singh was married with Balbir Kaur and that he has divorced aforesaid Balbir Kaur on 23-9-1985. Mr. Sahi has produced a photostat copy of the order dated 23-9-1985 of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, which shows that the application of Balbir Kaur u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce against Kashmir Singh was allowed and she was granted a decree for divorce.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record. There is no dispute regarding the legal position that only a legally wedded wife is entitled to get maintenance allowance u/s 125 of the Code from her husband. In the present case, apart from the pleadings of the petitioner herself that her husband was earlier married to some other woman, there is positive evidence of the judgment of divorce showing that Kashmir Singh respondent was earlier married to Balbir Kaur and that this marriage was subsisting in 1983 when he allegedly married Veena Kumari petitioner. Thus, under these circumstances, the withdrawal of this allegation by the petitioner, even if allowed, would be of no consequence.

Thus, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, in this petition. It is ordered to be dismissed.