JUDGMENT
Harbans Singh Rai, J.
1. Paramjit Kaur filed a petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance allowance from Prithpal Singh petitioner on the plea that she was married to him according to Sikh rites on October 15, 1958, at Patiala and lived as his wife for two years and thereafter he started ill-treating her and turned her out of the house. He refused to maintain her in spite of the demand and the efforts made by her parents and other respectables did not succeed. He has contracted a second marriage with Jaswinder Kaur alias Joginder Kaur.
2. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, vide his order dated October 30, 1982, dismissed the application holding that she is not legally wedded wife of Prithpal Singh and as such is not entitled to maintenance. However, he held that if she had been entitled to maintenance she would have been entitled to Rs. 250/- P.M. of maintenance. Feeling aggrieved, Paramjit Kaur filed a revision in the Court of Sessions Judge, Patiala. Mr. M.S. Lobana, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide his order dated November 14, 1985, accepted the revision and held that she is legally wedded wife of Prithpal Singh.
3. Prithpal Singh feeling aggrieved filed Criminal Revision No. 279 of 1986, against the order of Mr. M.S. Lobana, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala.
4. Mr. K.S. Cheema, learned counsel for Prithpal Singh has stated that Paramjit Kaur is died. It is not disputed by Mr. R.K. Battas, who was counsel for Paramjit Kaur and he admits that during the pendency of the revision petition, Paramjit Kaur has died. Mr. Battas prays that mother of Paramjit Kaur has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4794 of 1986, requesting that she may be appointed legal heir of Paramjit Kaur.
5. I have heard Mr. Cheema and Mr. Battas and gone through the record.
6. Although Paramjit Kaur respondent died, but as revision was admitted I consider it proper to examine the judgments to see whether they are to be confirmed or not.
7. Mr. M.S. Lobana in a well reasoned judgment has held Paramjit Kaur to be the legally wedded wife of Prithpal Singh. I do not find any justification to differ with that finding. This revision has no force and is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the Revision Petition, Cr. Misc. No. 4794 of 1986 has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as such.