Criminal Revision No.1125 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1125 of 2002 Date of Decision: April 22, 2009 Jasbir Singh ...........Petitioner Versus Surinder Kaur ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the petitioner. ** Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C' for short) for quashing the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Patiala dated 15.3.2002 whereby the revision filed by the respondent against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala dated 23.8.2001 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:- “The case of the petitioner as pleaded by her in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was that she was married to the Criminal Revision No.1125 of 2002 2 respondent on 16.5.1981 according to Anand Karaj ceremony at Ludhiana. Her parents had spent a huge amount in giving dowry and gift articles to the respondent and his other relatives at the time of marriage. However, the respondent was not satisfied. Few days after the marriage, he started demanding one thing or the other. The petitioner was telling him that her parents were poor persons and they had already spent a huge amount, but the respondent did not change his behaviour. She was even beaten on petty matters by the respondent. Ultimately, she was turned out of the house by the respondent in September, 1994 in three wearing clothes and she was threatened with dire consequences if she returned to his house with empty hands. Since 1994, the respondent has never cared for the petitioner nor he paid any maintenance to her. The petitioner does not own any possess any movable and immovable property and she is unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, the respondent is working as A.G.II in Food Corporation of India and is getting Rs.5000/- per month as salary. He also earns Rs.10,000/- per month from his private business. Hence, maintenance @ Rs.1500/- per month was prayed in her petition dated 10.3.1995.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in fact, the petitioner was never married respondent. Hence, the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Patiala granting maintenance to the respondent is liable to be set aside. A perusal of the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Patiala reveals that a finding was given by the Civil Court while dealing with a suit Criminal Revision No.1125 of 2002 3 filed for permanent injunction by the respondent-wife to the effect that there was no legal and valid marriage between the parties. The said finding was given by the Civil Court in a suit for permanent injunction and was uncalled for and was`Obiter Dicta'. The marital status of the parties was not material for deciding the controversy in a suit for permanent injunction. It was further observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the petitioner himself while filling up the nomination form with regard to his General Provident Fund and other retiral benefits had nominated respondent as his wife. Although the said nomination was later got changed in favour of his mother by the petitioner on 17.9.1991 yet it shows that the petitioner himself admitted the respondent as his wife. It was further observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the official of Office of the Deputy Commissioner Ludhiana Sham Sunder Sharma was examined as PW3. The said official brought the marriage register. As per the same, at serial No.745 dated 29.11.1988 on page 93 of the said register, a certificate of marriage was issued regarding marriage between Surinder Kaur-respondent and Jasbir Singh Tiwana-petitioner on 16.5.1981. In these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge rightly held that there was sufficient material on record to prove that the respondent was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. A provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been incorporated in the Code to provide speedy maintenance to deserted wives. The provision is a measure of social justice specially enacted to protect women and children from destitution. The provision has a social purpose to achieve and cannot be said to be punitive in nature and is rather remedial. In these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly granted maintenance Criminal Revision No.1125 of 2002 4 to the tune of Rs.1500/- per month to the respondent. The said amount in these circumstances in view of high prices now-a-days cannot be said to be on the higher side. Accordingly, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (Sabina) Judge April 22, 2009 arya