Muni Lal Verma, J. - (1.) SHRIMATI Satwant Kaur (now the respondent) was married to Raghmel Singh who now claims himself to be Rahim -ul -Din. When they could not carry on as husband and wife, Shrimati Satwant Kaur made an application for maintenance allowance under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. The said application was allowed on 11th December, 1969, and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 40/ - per mensem as maintenance allowance to her.
(2.) THE petitioner fell in arrears of maintenance allowance and, therefore, Shrimati Satwant Kaur made an application for realisation of maintenance allowance due to her for the period from 11th December, 1969, to 10th May, 1970. Since the petitioner did not pay any further allowance to her, she made second application for recovery of the maintenance allowance for the period from 11th May, 1970 to 10th October, 1970. Still, he did not pay any maintenance allowance to her and she made their application for realisation of maintenance allowance for the period from 11th October, 1970 to 10th September, 1971. The petitioner continued to be in arrears of maintenance allowance Shrimati Satwant Kaur had to move fourth application for recovery of the maintenance allowance for the period from 11th September, 1971 to 10th August, 1972. In all these four applications, the petitioner took up an objection that she (Shrimati Satwant Kaur) could not realise the maintenance allowance for the reason that his marriage with her was not subsisting because he had embraced Islam. The said objection, raised by him, was over -ruled by the learned Magistrate in all the four applications. He went in revision to the Court of Sessions Judge Patiala, in all those four cases. The said revision petitions were dismissed. Hence, he preferred to this Court four revision petitions. This revision petition relates to the application moved by Shrimati Satwant Kaur for realisation of the maintenance allowance for the period from 11th December, 1969 to 10th May, 1970. Revision petition No. 1035 of 1973 relates to the recovery of the maintenance allowance for the period from 11th May 1970 to 10th October, 1973, Criminal Revision petition No. 1031 of 1973 relates to the recovery of maintenance allowance for the period from 11th October, 1970 to 10th September, 1974, and Criminal Revision petition No. 1033 of 1973 relates to the application moved by her for the maintenance allowance for the period from 11th September, 1971 to 10th August, 1972. Since the question involved in all the four revision petitions is one and the same; therefore, these four revision petitions are being disposed of by one judgment. I have heard the arguments. The vital question for decision in all these revision petitions is as to whether the conversion of religion, i.e., that the petitioner had embraced Islam, has the effect of ipso facto dissolving the marriage between the parties ? My answer to the said question is in the negative. Conversion of religion of a spouse may afford a ground for the aggrieved spouse to seek annulment of the marriage or decree of divorce. But, I do not think that the law permits a spouse to end the marriage by mere conversion of religion. Therefore, when the change of religion, as alleged by the petitioner, could not, by itself dissolve or annul his marriage with Shrimati Satwant Kaur, his liability, under the order passed under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, directing him to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 40/ - per mensem to her, does not cease. In these premises, when the marriage between the praise subsists, and cannot be said to have come to an and simply because the petitioner named himself as Rahim -ul -Din, as he (the petitioner) says his liability to pay the maintenance allowance under the order passed under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code remains alive. Therefore, the impugned order was correctly recorded by the learned Magistrate and there is no merit in either of these revision petitions.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , I, maintaining the impugned orders dismiss this revision, as well as Revision petitions Nos. 1035 of 1973, 1031 of 1973 and 1033 of 1973.;