Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1345 (PNJ)

Maghar Dass v. Raj Rani Alias Surinder Kanta

2004-12-13

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2004
Judgment S.N.Aggarwal, J. 1. Raj Rani @ Surinder Kanta-respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and her son Prem Sagar against Maghar Dass-petitioner. It was contested by the petitioner on the plea that Raj Rani was not his legally wedded wife and Prem Sagar was not born from his loins. The learned trial Court dismissed the said application vide order dated 27.9.1989. Raj Rani-respondent filed a revision petition against the said order, which was decided by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 11.8.1990, by which maintenance was granted to Prem Sagar who was held to be illegitimate son of Maghar Dass-petitioner and the application for maintenance filed by Raj Rani for herself was dismissed. The case was remanded back to the learned trial Court for quantifying the rate of maintenance payable by Maghar Dass to his son Prem Sagar. 2. Accordingly, against this order, the present revision petition has been filed by Maghar Dass-petitioner husband, while Crl. M. No. 12020-M of 1990 has been filed by Raj Rani-respondent against the dismissal of her application for maintenance by the revisional Court. 3. Since Criminal Revision No. 726 of 1990 and Criminal Misc. No. 12020-M of 1990 are arising out of the same order, therefore, these are being disposed of by this order. 4. In support of her plea, that she was a legally wedded wife of Maghar Dass and Prem Sagar-applicant was born from this wedlock, Raj Rani-respondent had produced 9 witnesses, while Maghar Dass-petitioner had examined 6 witnesses including himself. 5. Nand Lal AW-3, examined by the applicant, brought the record from Dr. B.M. Kapoor Memorial Hospital, Ludhiana, who proved the admission of Raj Rani in the said hospital on 1.6.1981 at 9.40 P.M. at CR No. 2232 and proved its bed head ticked as Exhibit AW-3/1. In the said bed head ticked dated 1.6.1981, Raj Rani was shown as the wife of Maghar Singh son of Channan Singh and is signed by Maghar Dass. Admittedly, the fathers name of Maghar Dass- petitioner is Channan Dass, which has been shown by him in his revision petition also. In the said bed head ticked dated 1.6.1981, Raj Rani was shown as the wife of Maghar Singh son of Channan Singh and is signed by Maghar Dass. Admittedly, the fathers name of Maghar Dass- petitioner is Channan Dass, which has been shown by him in his revision petition also. Whether he is Maghar Singh or Maghar Dass and whether his fathers name is Channan Singh or Channan Dass, the words `Singh and `Dass are not very material, particularly, when the address given in the bed head ticket is the address of the petitioner, namely, Mohalla Fatehgarh, Near Chand Cinema, Ludhiana. This document has come into existence in the year 1981 much before the application for maintenance was filed by Raj Rani in the year 1984. 6. Raj Rani had also examined Constable Harjang Singh as PW-4, who had brought the official record of Maghar Dass-petitioner, who was working as a Head Constable under the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana. This witness has also proved that a complaint was filed against Maghar Dass- petitioner by Raj Rani-respondent, on which an enquiry was ordered (Exhibit AW 4/2) and the petitioner was charge-sheeted (AW 4/1) on 28.11.1983 and it was held by the Enquiry Officer vide Enquiry Report dated 17.1.1984 that the charge were proved against Maghar Dass and he was accordingly, dismissed from his service vide order dated 9.4.1983 (Exhibit AW 4/3), which was served on Maghar Dass on 16.8.1986. In the said departmental enquiry, in his statement dated 17.2.1983, Maghar Dass, Head Constable had admitted Raj Rani-respondent to be his wife and he had also admitted that a son Prem Sagar was born from this wedlock, who was stated to be six years old at that time. It is not denied even by the petitioner that Tarsem Kaur was his first legally wedded wife. The dismissal of the petitioner Maghar Dass was ordered only on the ground that he had remarried Raj Rani @ Surinder Kanta during the subsistence of his first marriage and during the life time of his first wife-Tarsem Kaur. 7. It is not denied even by the petitioner that Tarsem Kaur was his first legally wedded wife. The dismissal of the petitioner Maghar Dass was ordered only on the ground that he had remarried Raj Rani @ Surinder Kanta during the subsistence of his first marriage and during the life time of his first wife-Tarsem Kaur. 7. It is also proved by documentary evidence that Tarsem Kaur who was the first wife of Maghar Dass had filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit AW 5/3) and therefore, the present petitioner had filed a divorce petition (Exhibit AW 5/6) against her, which was dismissed for want of prosecution by the Court of Additional District Judge on 23.8.1982. 8. Raj Rani appeared as PW-5 and had also proved certain letters which were written by the petitioner to her, which were proved as Exhibits AW 5/8 to AW 5/11. The contents of these letters clearly show the intimate relationship between the petitioner and Raj Rani. Prem Sagar was born from this wedlock on 4.3.1978 and a photocopy of the birth certificate was proved by Raj Rani as Exhibit AW-5, in the said birth certificate, Raj Rani has been shown to be the wife of Maghar Dass. Even the photograph of the petitioner with Raj Rani- respondent and their child has been proved as Exhibit AW 8/1. 9. Since Raj Rani-respondent was kept as wife by the petitioner and during the life time of his first wife Tarsem Kaur, therefore, the marriage of Raj Rani with Maghar Das was not legal. It was a void marriage. But certainly, the child born from this wedlock namely, Prem Sagar, was the son of Maghar Dass, may be illegitimate. 10. The petitioner had led the evidence to prove that Raj Rani was earlier married twice and her husband was alive and therefore, her marriage with him was not legal. Although, Raj Rani has denied having conducted two marriages before her marriage with Maghar Dass-petitioner and has alleged and led evidence to prove that she was married to Mohan Dass alone, who had died prior to her re-marriage with Maghar Dass-petitioner. But this fact is not very material for the purpose of this case because admittedly, Tarsem Kaur, the first wife of Maghar Dass-petitioner was alive when Raj Rani allegedly married Maghar Dass-petitioner in the year 1977. But this fact is not very material for the purpose of this case because admittedly, Tarsem Kaur, the first wife of Maghar Dass-petitioner was alive when Raj Rani allegedly married Maghar Dass-petitioner in the year 1977. Therefore, her marriage with Maghar Dass-petitioner cannot be called to be a legal marriage. 11. Maghar Dass-petitioner has enjoyed his second marriage with Raj Rani and even a child was born from this wedlock and, therefore, the petitioner is morally bound to afford maintenance to her. However, legally he is not, in view of the law laid down by the Honble supreme Court in the judgments reported as Yamuna Bai Ananta Rao Adhav v. Anant Rao Shivram Adhav, 1988(1) RCR(Crl.) 322 (SC) : AIR 1988 SC 644 and K. Vimla v. K. Veeraswamy, 1991(1) Crimes 828 (SC), by which the women of void marriage have been deprived to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. In the latest judgment reported as Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam and others, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1418, the Honble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that legal marriage may be necessary for the purposes of civil rights, right to property, etc. as laid down in Yamuna Bai Ananta Rao Yadavs case (supra), still for the purposes of provisions of Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, a person who enters into a marital arrangement cannot be allowed to take shelter behind the smoke scree by contending that there was no valid marriage between him and the deceased. Therefore, the law, as it stands today, the woman of a void marriage is not entitled to maintenance. However, a son, may be illegitimate, is entitled to claim maintenance from his father. 13. In view of the discussion held above, the marriage of Raj Rani with Maghar Dass-petitioner was a void marriage. Since Prem Sagar is proved to be the son of maghar Dass-petitioner, born from his wedlock with Raj Rani, therefore, Maghar Dass-petitioner is under legal obligation to provide maintenance to him, in view of the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. 14. In view of the above, the revision petition filed by Maghar Dass- petitioner, as well as the misc. application filed by Raj Rani-respondent, are dismissed.