Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NARINDER KUMAR versus BABITA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Narinder Kumar v. Babita - CR-6560-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1908 (22 March 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision 6560 of 2005

Date of decision: 19-12-2005

Narinder Kumar ...Petitioner

Versus

Babita ...Respondent

Present: Mr KS Rekhi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

S.S. SARON, J.

Civil Revision 6560 of 2005

This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 23.11.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge ( Sr Divn) Amritsar, whereby the application of the respondent Ms Babita for the grant of interim maintenance to the tune of Rs 1,000/- per month has been allowed.

The respondent filed a suit under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 alleging herself to be the wife of the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, she filed an application for the grant of interim maintenance. It was stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14.9.1996. However, after marriage, the petitioner and his family members are alleged to have given maltreatment to the respondent. Now, the petitioner, it is alleged, has turned out the respondent from her matrimonial home and has refused and neglected to maintain her. She has no source of income and is unable to maintain herself whereas the petitioner, it is stated, is a man of means and is running a Karyana shop. The petitioner, in his reply filed to the application, opposed the grant of interim maintenance and stated that he has no resources. He also denied that he was running a karyana shop. In fact, he was working as a labourer in a factory and getting monthly pay of Rs 2150/-. He denied that the respondent is his legally wedded wife and moreover she has joined her husband namely Hardev. Therefore, the petitioner has no legal obligation to maintain the respondent and the question of neglecting and refusing to maintain her did not arise. The application having been allowed, the petitioner has assailed the same.

Mr KS Rekhi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the respondent is married to one Hardev Singh and this fact is evident from the letter issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India where the address of the respondent was changed from Ms Babita Mehra wife of Hardev Singh, House No.144, Gali No.3, Vijay Nagar, Batala Road, Amritsar to Ms Babita Mehra, c/o Narinder Civil Revision 6560 of 2005

Kumar, Karyana Merchant, Main Bazar, VPO Kot Khalsa, Amritsar. It is, therefore, contended that the fact that the respondent is married to another person and has a spouse living, dis-entitles her for the grant of maintenance and consequently also for the grant of interim maintenance.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I am of the view that the question whether the respondent has another spouse living or not would more appropriately be gone into after the parties have led evidence. At this stage, only a photo copy of the letter showing that the Life Insurance Corporation of India had changed the address of the respondent has been submitted. The learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Amritsar, in his impugned order, has observed that from this, it cannot be concluded that the respondent is having another living spouse and that her marriage with the petitioner is null and void. This Court in the case of Sushila v. Raj Kishan Mor 2002(1) CCC 527 (P&H) considered the allegations where the wife was stated to be leading an unchaste life and was living with some other person. It was held that the said allegations were not to be accepted at the stage of grant of interim maintenance and it has to be established and proved by leading evidence during trial. Therefore, in pursuance of the impugned order, only interim maintenance having been fixed, no interference is called for in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The question whether the respondent has another spouse living, would more appropriately be gone into and considered after evidence has been led by the parties. It is not disputed that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14.9.1996. Therefore, the question as regards disentitlement of the respondent to the grant of maintenance on account of an alleged earlier marriage is not liable to be considered or gone into at this stage.

In the circumstances, there is no error in the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) Amrtisar in granting interim maintenance to the respondent.

Civil Revision 6560 of 2005

Consequently, this civil revision petition is dismissed.

19.12.2005. ( S.S.SARON )

ASR JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.