HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Claiming to be the second wife of the petitioner, the respondent filed a petition under S.488, Cr. P. C. for the grant of maintenance in the Court of Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate, Basoli who vide his order dt. 29-9-1980 directed the payment of Rs. 70/- per month as maintenance to her from the date of the order. The petitioner filed a revision petition in the Court of Sessions Judge, Kathua stating therein that the order impugned was contrary to the provisions of law because the petitioner admittedly being second wife was not entitled to claim maintenance under S.488, Cr. P. C. as her marriage with the petitioner was in contravention of the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act and non-existent in the eye of law. However the revision petition was dismissed vide the order impugned.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the Courts below.
(3.) The question for determination in this revision petition is as to who is a "wife" contemplated by the provisions of S.488, Cr. P. C. for the grant of maintenance from her husband. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner maintenance can be claimed only by a legally wedded wife and not by any other woman even though she may have solemnized the marriage or had sexual relations with the opposite party. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent-wife is that once factum of marriage is proved, a wife would be deemed to be legally wedded wife entitled to maintenance irrespective of the other provisions as contained in the Hindu Marriage Act, if the parties are Hindus.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.