B.S.YADAV, J. - (1.) THE facts leading to this petition are that Paramjit Kaur respondent, wife of Jaswinder Singh has filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance for herself & for her minor son Bantu aged 2-1/2 years. That application has been filed against the husband as well as his father Jagjit Singh. Both have now filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings so far as Jagjit Singh is concerned on the ground that under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure father-in-law is not bound to pay any maintenance. It is further alleged that the said Bantu is residing with Jaswinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur's application for his custody was dismissed by this Court on 5.5.1983 and it was held that it was in the interest and welfare of the child that he should remain in the custody of his father and, therefore, she cannot claim any maintenance for Bantu and her prayer for maintenance qua Bantu should also be quashed.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the respondent admitted that under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure father-in-law was not bound to pay maintenance to his daughter-in-law or her son. He argued that Jagjit Singh had been made a party because the husband of the Paramjit Kaur is joint with his father and while assessing the amount of maintenance for her, the assets of the joint family will have to be considered. He further argued that in the petition no prayer has been made against Jagjit Singh and he has been made a party so that he might supply the list of joint Hindu family properties. I am of the opinion, that when Jagjit Singh is not liable to pay any maintenance to Paramjit Kaur, he should not have been made a party to the proceedings. It will be unnecessary harassment to him if he is forced to attend the hearings of the case. In case Paramjit Kaur wants the list of the joint Hindu family properties then she can examine her father-in-law as a witness. Therefore, as far as Jagjit Singh is concerned, there can be no denying the fact that thecontinuance of the proceedings against him will be an abuse of the process of the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that vide order dated 5th May, 1983 passed in Criminal Writ No. 126 of 1983 Mst. Paramjit Kaur v. Shri Jaswinder Singh and others, S.C. Mittal J. had held that it was difficult to hold that the welfare of Bintu (in the present proceedings his name has been referred as Bantu) requires that his custody be made over to Paramjit Kaur. It may be mentioned here that Bantu is residing with his father Jaswinder Singh and the above titled Writ Petition was filed by Paramjit Kaur for the custody of the child. The learned Judge dismissed that petition.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent argued that the learned Judge in that order had remarked that the judgment would not affect or prejudice the rights of Paramjit Kaur to approach the appropriate Court for obtaining appropriate orders of custody or guardianship of Bantu under the Guardianship and Wards Act and, therefore, if in future Bantu comes in the custody of Paramjit Kaur in appropriate proceedings on in appeal against the above order then she would have to file another petition for maintenance regarding Bantu and it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. At this stage we are not concerned what would happen in future. The question to be seen is whether Paramjit Kaur can claim any maintenance regarding Bantu while he is not residing with her and on the other hand is residing with its father. The obvious answer is in the negative. Jaswinder Singh cannot be asked to pay compensation to Paramjit Kaur while he himself is maintaining the child.;