Crl.R.No.2371 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.R.No.2371 of 2009 Date of decision: 30.7.2010. Balkar Singh ....................Petitioner v. Ajay Kumar minor son of Balkar Singh .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.YP Singla,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Arihant Jain,Advocate for the respondent. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Present revision petition has been filed by petitioner-father under Section 401 Cr.PC, challenging the order dated 12.6.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)Fast Tract Court, Sangrur, vide which the order dated 18.8.2007 passed by learned JMIC Malerkotla, dismissing the Application under Section 125 Cr.PC filed by the respondent-son for grant of maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- for want of evidence, was set aside and the application of the respondent-son was allowed with costs throughout. Briefly noticed, the facts leading to the filing of present revision petition are that petitioner-Balkar Singh was married with one Rajni Rani. Respondent-Ajay Kumar, minor, was born out of this wedlock. Marital discord between the couple led to passing of a decree Crl.R.No.2371 of 2009 2 of divorce dated 6.4.2002 by way of mutual consent under Section 13- B of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act). Respondent-Ajay Kumar filed an application under Section 125 Cr.PC for grant of maintenance @ Rs.1000/- p.m., from the petitioner. The said application was contested by petitioner-father by filing a reply. During the pendency of the said application learned JMIC, Malerkotla vide order dated 2.3.2006, granted interim maintenance @ Rs.1000/- p.m. to the respondent-son and the case was fixed for his evidence. Since the applicant-son (respondent herein) failed to produce any evidence on 9.5.2006, 14.7.2006, 30.9.2006, 16.12.2006, 3.3.2007, 25.5.2007 and 18.8.2007, his application was dismissed for want of evidence vide order dated 18.8.2007 passed by the learned JMIC, Malerkotla. Aggrieved against the same, respondent-son filed a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.PC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge(Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Sangrur vide impugned order dated 12.6.2009 allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent-son and petitioner-father was directed to pay Rs.1000/- per month as maintenance till he attains the age of majority. Hence the present revision petition under Section 401 Cr.PC. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-father that Rajni Rani, mother of the respondent at the time of decree of divorce by mutual consent had received a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the petitioner towards the cost of dowry articles, and her past and future Crl.R.No.2371 of 2009 3 maintenance and as such now respondent-son cannot claim grant of maintenance. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-son, by referring to statement (P4)-of Smt. Rajni recorded on 6.10.2001 during the divorce proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act- and decree of divorce (P5) dated 6.4.2002 has contended that in both these documents there is no mention regarding the maintenance of respondent-son and as such it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner that since Smt. Rajni had received Rs.60,000/- full and final settlement amount at the time of divorce, the respondent-son is not entitled to claim any maintenance from his petitioner-father. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book carefully, I am of the considered opinion that the present revision petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Smt.Rajni Rani ex-wife of petitioner-Balkar Singh, on 6.10.2001 made the following statement (P4):- “ I have heard the statement of petitioner no.1 and admit it to be correct. I have received a sum of Rs.60,000/- from petitioner no.1 in lieu of my past and future maintenance and cost of dowry articles etc. The minor child Ajay Kumar is in my custody and will remain in as such. There are no chances of reconciliation and residing under one roof as husband and wife. I have relinquished all my Crl.R.No.2371 of 2009 4 rights regarding matrimonial alliance towards petitioner no.1. Our marriage may be dissolved.” On the basis of statements of the parties the learned Civil Judge, Patiala vide order dated 6.4.2002 (P5) reproduced below, granted decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Act:- “Effort was made for bringing about compromise and reconciliation between the parties, but in vain. The parties stuck to their stand and prayed that petition for divorce be accepted. The statements of the parties have been recorded. Arguments heard. The petition is accordingly accepted. The marriage is dissolved by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the H.M.Act. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to the Record Room,Patiala.” From a perusal of the statement (P4) of Smt.Rajni and the decree of divorce (P5) it is evident that there no mention was made therein regarding the maintenance of minor son-Ajay Kumar (respondent herein). Further, learned Additional Sessions Judge, while allowing the revision petition of the respondent-son has noticed that in his reply to the application under Section 125 Cr.PC, petitioner-father had admitted that mother of minor was earning only Rs.1000/- and hence Crl.R.No.2371 of 2009 5 unable to maintain him, but he (petitioner) was earning Rs.4000/- p.m., and hence able to better maintain and provide good education and other facilities of life to him (respondent son). In these circumstances, the learned Revisional Court has rightly held that in view of admitted stand taken by the petitioner in his reply, no evidence was required. Moreover, petitioner being the father of respondent is legally and morally bound to maintain him. In view of the above, I find no merit in this revision petition and hence the same is hereby dismissed. 30.7.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge