IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc 54974-M of 2007 Date of decision: 19.1.2009 Satwant Singh …Petitioner Versus Baldev Kaur and anr …Respondents Present: Mr JS Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Meenu Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. S.S. SARON, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC – for short) has been filed seeking quashing of order dated 1.8.2007 (P9) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby the order dated 7.4.2006 (P7) passed by the learned JMIC Ludhiana granting maintenance pendentelite to the respondents @ Rs 2500/- per month to respondent-1 and @ Rs 2000/- per month to respondent-2 has been upheld. The case set up by the respondents is that respondent-1 was married with the petitioner about 27 years ago at village Ferozepur alias Kathaia, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur. Out of the wedlock, a son and two daughters were born. Respondent-2 who is the daughter of the petitioner and respondent-1 is a student and has no source of income. The other daughter of the petitioner and respondent-1 is married. The son is unemployed. In the petition filed under Section 125 CrPC, interim maintenance @ Rs 2500/- per month and @ Rs 2000/- per month has been 1 Criminal Misc 54974-M of 2007 granted to respondents-1 and 2 respectively by the learned trial Magistrate vide order dated 7.4.2006 (P7). Revision against the same has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 1.8.2007 (P9). Aggrieved against the same, the present petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the relationship of husband and wife between the petitioner and respondent-1 has been denied and there is no valid or subsisting marriage between them. Therefore, the orders of the Courts below granting interim maintenance are erroneous and liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that it is the admitted case of the respondents in their rejoinder to the written reply filed by the petitioner that respondent-2 has been married recently i.e. on 26.11.2003 by respondent-1. Therefore, it is submitted that respondent-2 in any case being the married daughter, is not entitled to maintenance. In response, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there are documents and material on record to show that the petitioner is married to respondent-1. It is submitted that the Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India records respondent-1 as the wife of the petitioner. Besides, an agreement dated 9.2.1993 was entered into between the petitioner and respondent-1 in which both had arrived at a compromise. In the said agreement respondent-1 is recorded as wife of the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the claim of the petitioner is devoid of any merit. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that only interim maintenance has been granted. The mere fact that petitioner disputes his relationship of husband and wife with respondent-1 would not per se disentitle the respondents to the grant of 2 Criminal Misc 54974-M of 2007 maintenance. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the evidence and material on record to reach a prima facie conclusion that the respondent-1 is the wife of the petitioner. In this regard, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has referred to the Voters Card issued by the Election Commission of India in which respondent-1 is recorded as the wife of the petitioner. Besides, in the agreement dated 9.2.1993 between the parties, it has been mentioned that they were married about 17 years ago and out of the wedlock three children were born. Keeping in view the fact that the parties have had children and there is material and evidence on record to show that they are married, at this stage mere denial of the marriage by the petitioner would not warrant any interference by this Court against the impugned orders granting interim maintenance to the petitioners. The contention that it is admitted by the respondents that respondent-2 has recently married, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in fact the elder daughter of the petitioner and respondent-1 was recently married and not that respondent-2 was married. A perusal of the petition filed by respondent-1 under Section 125 CrPC, shows that it is clearly mentioned therein that respondent-2 is a student and has no source of income. The averment in the rejoinder to the reply that respondent-2 has recently married is only a slip while filing the rejoinder and the same in fact refers to the elder daughter. It may even be noticed that in the orders passed by the two Courts below such a contention had not been raised by the petitioner. Therefore, it is well understood by him that it is the elder daughter of the parties who has been married. In the circumstances, no ground for interference with the orders passed granting interim maintenance is made out by this Court. 3 Criminal Misc 54974-M of 2007 Consquently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 19.1.2009. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE 4