TEJINDER KAUR Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TEJINDER Kaur petitioner has filed this application Under Section 482 of the Criminal P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the new Code) and Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders of the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Lothian dated April 25, 1975 dismissing her application for maintenance Under Section 125 of the new Code and also against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dated May 28, 1976, dismissing her revision against the order of the Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application Under Section 125 of the new Code in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate I Class Ludhiana, against Balbir Singh, respondent, stating that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The marriage was performed in Feb. 1967 at Ludhiana. After the marriage, she and the respondent lived as husband and wife at Shankar, Delhi, Ludhiana and other places. The respondent used to press upon her to get money from her parents whenever he was in necessity. Whenever she failed to get the money from her parents, she was maltreated. During general election to the Punjab Legislative Assembly, held in 1972, the respondent contested the election as a Congress candidate. For his election campaign, he was in need of money and pressed her to get it from her parents. Their marital relations got strained on her failure to provide money to the respondent. Because of ill-treatment ai the hands of the respondent, her health deteriorated. On the medical advice for a change of climate, she proceeded to United States of America. Taking advantage of her absence from India, the respondent filed a suit against her in the Civil Court at Nakodar, stating that she was not his legally wedded wife and as such there was no relationship of husband and wife between them. The petitioner got information about these proceedings and rushed back from the USA and appeared in the Court in the case on Dec. 13, 1972 to contest the proceedings. Feeling frustrated in his attempt to get decree and of the fear of being prosecuted for false verification of the plaint, the respondent absented himself from the Court on Jan. 8, 1973. His counsel pleaded no instructions in the case and his suit was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner made unsuccessful attempts to meet the respondent. She came to know from newspaper reports that he had remarried with another girl.

(3.) AS the petitioner, according to her averments in the petition, was not possessed of sufficient means to maintain herself and the respondent neglected and refused to maintain her, she filed an application in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Ludhiana, Under Section 125 of the new Code for the award of maintenance.