Crl. Misc. No. M-39016 of 2006 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-39016 of 2006
Date of Decision: July 1, 2009
Shamsher Singh
.....Petitioner
Vs.
Raj Kaur and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:- Petitioner in person.
Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr.A.K. Walia, Advocate for the complainant.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J.
Petitioner Shamsher Singh has filed this petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated April 26, 2006 passed by CJM,
Patiala, fixing maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at the rate of
Rs.1000/- per month to Raj Kaur and Rs.500/- per month to his son
Rashhpal Singh- respondents No.1 and 2 respectively. This petition was
Crl. Misc. No. M-39016 of 2006 [2]
earlier filed through counsel Sh.Tribhuwan Singla but subsequently the
petitioner opted to appear in person. Since the petitioner was appearing in
person being an aggrieved party himself, he raised a large number of
arguments and subsequently also submitted written arguments.
In nut-shell, the contention of the petitioner is that respondent
No.1 is not legally wedded wife of petitioner as she was earlier married to
Gajjan Singh. She fraudulently performed Chuni ceremony with the
petitioner on September 30, 1996. No ceremony of marriage had taken
place. Petitioner had caught Raj Kaur on May 29, 2004 having affair with
her brother-in-law (i.e. sister’s husband). She was scolded by her parents.
She consumed toilet acid. Matter was ultimately compromised on the
condition that the petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.6 lacs for past, present
and future maintenance (permanent alimony). The petitioner had purchased
property in the name of respondent no.1 and she sold one property on July
19, 2004 and given a power of attorney for rest of the property and an
amount of Rs.6 lacs was paid to respondent No.1. The trial Court ignored
this fact while granting maintenance to the respondents. It was also argued
that the trial Court had failed to appreciate that petitioner has been paying
Rs.2400/- as instalment to the ICICI Bank for housing loan and Rs.2000/- as
house rent and is paying maintenance to his daughter from earlier wife. The
petitioner has challenged his marriage before the competent Court at Patiala
being a void marriage and the case is pending adjudication at the Courts at
Patiala.
Crl. Misc. No. M-39016 of 2006 [3]
I have taken into consideration all the pleas raised by the
petitioner. The main contention is that his marriage with respondent no.1 is
null and void. If a marriage is void, the same has to be got declared from
the Court. The petitioner has submitted that a petition for getting the
marriage declared void is pending. Without expression of any opinion on
the merits of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has
got an alternative remedy to file a revision petition challenging the legality
and propriety of the order of grant of maintenance to the respondents. All
the pleas taken by the petitioner in this petition may be raised before the
said Court. Quashing of the impugned order exercising inherent jurisdiction
does not appear to be appropriate. The revisional Court can exercise the
revisional jurisdiction by perusing the relevant record and if any illegality
has been committed, it is always open to the revisional Court to rectify the
illegal mistake.
Petition is dismissed relegating the petitioner to the alternative
remedy.
July 1, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE