IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Misc. No. 24698-M of 2007 Maku Tudu and others … Petitioners Versus Usha Rani and another … Respondents 2. Criminal Misc. No. 28553-M of 2007 Maku Tudu and others … Petitioners Versus Usha Rani … Respondent Date of decision: 21st September, 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) By this common judgment, two petitions viz. (1) Criminal Misc. No.24698-M of 2007 titled as ‘Maku Tudu and others v. Usha Rani and others’ and (2) Criminal Misc. No.28553-M of 2007 titled as ‘Maku Tudu and others v. Usha Rani’ shall be decided together. Criminal Misc. No.24698-M of 2007 has been filed by Maku Tudu and her minor children with a prayer that order dated 10th February, 2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Amritsar, whereby maintenance of Rs.3,000/- was awarded in favour of Usha Rani-respondent No.1 be set aside along with order dated 22nd Criminal Misc. No.24698-M and 28553-M of 2007 May, 2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by the revisional Court affirming the findings of the Court below. Shorn off the details, necessary facts which are required to be noticed are that one Moti Tudu was an employee of the Indian Railways. Maku Tudu-petitioner and Usha Rani-respondent claim themselves to be the first wife of Moti Tudu. The Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Amritsar, vide judgment (Annexure P-1) returned a finding that the marriage of Usha Rani was performed with Moti Tudu by Pandit Raghu Nath in Shiv Mandir, Kishori Building, Amritsar on 14th December, 1982 and both of them cohabited together for some time after their marriage. Thereafter, Moti Tudu had thrown Usha Rani out of the matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason. In the present petition, Maku Tudu has prayed that the judgment (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Amritsar and the judgment (Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar be set aside, as she, being a legally wedded wife, cannot be deprived of the retiral benefits of Moti Tudu. In the connected petition bearing Criminal Misc. No. 28553- M of 2007, a prayer has been made that the respondent-Usha Rani is not entitled to arrears of maintenance and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Amritsar, whereby objections filed by the petitioner in the execution petition were rejected, be set aside. Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are of a summary nature and the legal character of husband and wife in the matrimonial affairs can only be determined by the Civil Court. Learned counsel has relied upon Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act to state that till the parties approach the Civil Court and it is determined as to who 2 Criminal Misc. No.24698-M and 28553-M of 2007 is the legally wedded wife of Moti Tudu, the orders passed by the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C. be kept in abeyance. Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate appearing for the respondent- Usha Rani, has stated that even the second wife is also entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., even though the marriage is held to be void in view of the first marriage. During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner- Maku Tudu and counsel for the respondent-Usha Rani have stated that both intend to file Civil Suits for declaration as to who is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Moti Tudu. In case, as stated by counsel for the parties, Maku Tudu and Usha Rani file Civil Suits for declaration in the Civil Court within a period of one month from today, both the suits shall be tried separately but simultaneously. The Civil Court shall make every endeavour to decide the suits within a period of nine months from the date of their institution. Till then, counsel for the parties are in agreement that the arrangement devised by the executing Court, where the part payment was made to Usha Rani, be adhered to. In view of the broad consensus arrived at between counsel for the parties, which has been noticed above, both the above said petitions are disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 21, 2010 rps 3