SURYA KANT,J - (1.) IN this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 2.12.2005 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana whereby an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent, has been accepted and the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 600/- per month to the respondent, as well as the order dated 8.4.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad Hoc), Patiala whereby the petitioner's revision petition against the above-mentioned order of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, has also been dismissed.
(2.) UNUSUAL and strange are the facts of this case. The respondent (Karnail Kaur) filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the grant of maintenance inter alia alleging that she was married to the petitioner about 16 years back and the parties were residing as husband and wife but no child was born out of the wedlock. She also averred that sufficient dowry articles were given by her parents at the time of marriage. However, the petitioner allegedly started ridiculing her for the last about two years saying that she had become old and not fit for his company and that he will remarry some young woman. It was further alleged that for the last about one year, the petitioner had refused to provide food and shelter to her and had rather thrown her out of the matrimonial home after giving merciless beatings. The petitioner contested the respondent's claim and took up a specific plea that she is not at all his legally wedded wife. The petitioner further took a categoric stand that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of Nek Singh son of Bakhtour Singh, resident of Village Bahmana and, that she had nine children out of the said wedlock i.e. seven daughters and two sons. The petitioner also pleaded that in fact he was married to Paramjit Kaur, daughter of Chet Singh, and out of the said wedlock, he had four issues i.e. three daughters and one son.
(3.) IN order to prove that she was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, the respondent herself stepped into the witness box and also examined Jugraj Singh (AW-2) and Mella Singh son of Harnam Singh (AW-3). No other oral evidence or documentary evidence whatsoever was led by the respondent.;