Allowed

Gurbaksh Singh v. Jasmail Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Nov 2024CRR(F)/733/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A revision petition challenged an interim maintenance order of Rs.3,500 per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. granted on the basis of identity documents. The High Court found the Family Court misread the Aadhaar card and voter list, which did not show the respondent as the petitioner's wife, set aside the interim maintenance order, and left merits for determination by the Family Court after appraisa

What did the court decide?

Impugned interim maintenance order dated 02.01.2023 set aside; final finding left to the Family Court.

Gurbaksh Singh Vs Jasmail Kaur — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

Page 1 of 7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

234 CRR-F-733-2023(O&M) Date of order: 18.11.2024

Gurbaksh Singh

…..Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Jasmail Kaur

…..Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Adv o cate for the petitioner. Mr. Arpinder Singh Sidhu , Advocate for the respondent. ***** Nidhi Gupta, J.

¶10

Challenge in the presen t petition is to the order date d

¶11

02.01.2023 p assed by the learned Addition a l Principal Judge, Family Court , Camp Court, Moonak, whereby in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. , the petition e r has been directed to pay int e rim maintenance of Rs.3,500/ - per month t o the respondent from the d ate of application along wit h litigation ex p enses of Rs.3,000/-.

¶12

Learned counsel for th e petitioner at the very outse t vehemently submits that the respondent has filed the present petitio n under Secti o n 125 Cr.P.C. under false prete x t claiming herself to be wife o f the petition e r. It is submitted that it has been categorically pleaded by th e petitioner b e fore the learned Family Court that the respondent is not hi s wife. Yet th e impugned maintenance has b e en granted to the respondent . In fact, the p etitioner is married to some ot h er lady namely Sukhpreet Kau r

¶13

SUNENA 2024.11.22 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

Page 2 of 7

¶15

with whom h e has four children. Aadhar C a rds of the said Sukhpreet Kau r and their fo u r children are on record as A n nexure P6 (page 34-38 of th e paper book) . It is submitted that though t h ese facts were duly brought t o the notice o f the learned Family Court, ye t the impugned order has been passed wit h out first deciding the preli m inary question regarding th e entitlement of the respondent to mainte n ance. It is submitted that th e learned Fa m ily Court has totally misread the evidence on record. It i s accordingly p rayed that the impugned orde r be set aside.

¶16

Per contra, the only s ubmission made by learned counsel for the respondent is that the respondent is an illiterate lady and a s such, there h ave occurred some discrepanci e s in the ID proofs submitted b y

¶17

her.

¶18

No other argument is ma d e on behalf of the parties.

¶19

I have heard learned cou n sel for the parties and peruse d

¶20

the case file in great detail.

¶21

Perusal of record of the c ase shows that the responden t had filed th e present petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. dated 08.11.201 7 (Annexure P 1 ) with the assertions that she w as the lawfully wedded wife o f the petition e r herein; that no child is bor n out of her wedlock with th e petitioner; that she is handicapped; as su c h, she was turned out of th e matrimonial home by the petitioner who h a d neglected her and refused t o maintain he r without sufficient cause; that t he petitioner is a person who i s having illicit relation with some other lady; a nd that the respondent is livin g

¶22

SUNENA 2024.11.22 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

Page 3 of 7

¶24

at her pare n tal house and is finding it di f ficult to maintain herself. Th e respondent h ad duly attached her attested A adhar Card (Annexure P7) with her petition u nder Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P1).

¶25

The petitioner had ca t egorically disputed the sai d contentions of the respondent by filing hi s written statement (Annexur e P2); and int e r alia stating therein that petitioner was never married to th e respondent; that the petitioner is already m arried to one Sukhpreet Kau r with whom h e has four children; that the correct name of the respondent i s Melo Kaur i n the revenue record; and that s he has some land in her nam e at village Ballran. It was accordingly conten d ed by the petitioner before th e learned Family Court that since the respon d ent is not his wife, he was no t liable to pay any maintenance to her. Relev a nt Para 2 of the reply Annexur e P2 (page 28 o f the paper book) is as follows: -

¶26

“2. That the para no. 2 of t h e application is wrong henc e denied. The whole contents me n tioned in this para are wrongl y mentioned and due to that reason the applicant has no t mentioned the time or perio d when she was maltreated o r expelled from the house of res p ondent. The question of goin g to the house of applicant als o does not arise as there is n o relation between the app l icant and respondent. Th e respondent is a married perso n but not with applicant. She i s levelling false allegation r egarding the character o f respondent. The facts regard i ng the illness of applicant i s beyond knowledge of respond e nt so the said fact is denied fo r want of knowledge. As per kn o wledge the applicant has som e land in her name at village Bal l ran but her name is Melo Kau r in revenue record.”

¶27

SUNENA 2024.11.22 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

Page 4 of 7

¶29

It may be pointed out that the respondent had no t attached an y proof of her marriage with the petitioner before the learned Family Cour t . Even no proof of marriage of the parties has been produced by the learned counsel for the responden t before this Court. As such, i n order to verify the identity of the responde n t, the learned Family Court ha d relied upon the Aadhar Card (Annexure P7) and voter ID card of th e respondent f or the year 1999, ‘ wherein sh e is recorded to be the wife o f Gurbakash S ingh resident of Sangatpura ’ i.e. the petitioner and ha d accordingly granted the impugned interi m maintenance. The relevan t reasoning of the learned Family Court is as f o llows: -

¶30

“6…On the other hand the peti t ioner has placed on record he r Aadhar Card wherein she is recorded to be the wife o f Gurbakhash Singh, resident of S angatpura. She has also place d on record Voter List for the y ear 1999, wherein she is als o recorded to be wife of Gurb a khash Singh and the addres s mentioned is village Sangatpura, Tehsil Sunam. Thus at thi s prefatory stage there are suff i cient grounds to presume tha t petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent…”

¶31

However, perusal of the record and the file shows tha t

¶32

the learned Family Court has totally misr e ad the above said documents. The petitioner has placed on record certi f ied copy of the Aadhaar car d (Annexure P 7) produced by the respond e nt before the learned Famil y Court. A per u sal of the certified copy of the s aid Aadhar Card number “289 6 5267 5382” and the vernacular thereof (at pages 40 and 48 of the pape r book respec t ively) produced by the respon d ent before the learned Famil y

¶33

SUNENA Court, reve a ls that the name of the respondent is recorded therein a s 2024.11.22 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

Page 5 of 7

¶35

“Malo Kaur” “W/o Lelu Singh, Mola Patti, B alran, Balran, Sangrur, Punjab, 148033”,an d her year of birth as “1955”. I t is not clear to this Court as t o how the le a rned Family Court could have read the same to be ‘Jasmel Kaur’/respo n dent; and how there could be such blatant misreading of th e document b y the learned Family Court. W h at is most intriguing is that i n the vernacular, the respondent has signed/self-attested the above sai d Aadhaar car d as ‘Jasmel Kaur’. Even this fac t or has been overlooked by th e learned Family Court.

¶36

A further perusal of the v oter list (Annexure P5 - at pag e 33 of the pa p er book) for the year 1999, an d its vernacular thereof (at pag e 46 of the pa p er book) again appended by th e respondent herself before th e learned Family Court, shows that now the r e spondent had shown her nam e to be “Gur m ail Kaur”; and the petitioner “Gurbaksh Singh” is recorde d therein as h e r “Father”.

¶37

It may be pointed out t h at during the pendency of th e case, the re s pondent had moved an applica t ion before the ld. Family Cour t for amendment in the title of the petition from ‘Jasmail Kaur’ to ‘Jasmai l Kaur @ Gur m ail Kaur’. She wanted to chan g e the title of her application b y change of h e r name accordingly. The petit i oner had filed reply (Annexur e P3), to the s aid application stating that th e respondent wants to use th e name of so m e other lady as she wants to s o mehow prove herself to be th e wife of the p etitioner. It was also stated th a t the fact cannot be said to b e correct as s h e had also filed an affidavit al o ng with her application in th e SUNENA Court and i n that affidavit she has also m entioned her name as Jasmai l 2024.11.22 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

Page 6 of 7

¶39

Kaur. The r e spondent cannot say that her name is not the same as sh e mentioned i n her affidavit. It was accordin g ly averred that the responden t had filed t h e said application for chang e of name with some ulterio r motive.

¶40

From the above facts, the only inference that can b e drawn is tha t the learned Family Court has p assed the impugned order on a totally inco r rect premise. It is prima faci e established from the abov e relied-upon documents that nowhere is the petitioner shown to b e husband of t he respondent. It is not clear a s to on what basis the learned Family Cour t has derived from the above p r oduced Aadhar Card (Annexur e P7), that t h e respondent is wife of “Gurbakash Singh resident o f Sangatpura” , when she is clearly shown to b e “Malo Kaur” “W/o Lelu Singh , Mola Patti, B alran, Balran, Sangrur, Punjab, 1 48033”.

¶41

Even as per the Voter L i st for the year 1999(Annexur e P5), the res p ondent is shown to be “daug h ter” of the present petitioner . Again, it is n o t clear as to how the learned F a mily Court read the same to b e ‘wife of Gurbakash Singh resident of Sang a tpura’. It is patently incorrect . Further, the contention of learned counsel f or the respondent that the said discrepancies have arisen in the record a s the respondent is illiterate , cannot be a c cepted.

¶42

It is also relevant to not e that as per the Aadhar Card o f the respon d ent (Annexure P7) her year o f birth is “1955”; whereas a perusal of t h e Aadhar Card of the petitione r (at page 49 of the paper book )

¶43

SUNENA 2024.11.22 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

Page 7 of 7

¶45

shows his d a te of birth to be “01.01.1987” ; and perusal of Aadhar Card o f wife of the p etitioner namely Sukhpreet Kaur (Annexure P6 colly) (at pag e 34 of the pa p er book) shows her date of bi r th to be “01.01.1985”. There i s nothing on r ecord to indicate as to why the petitioner would marry th e respondent who is 22 years older than him. It has been stated by th e learned Counsel for the petitioner that b y this measure, the petitione r would have been 12 years of age at th e time of his marriage to th e respondent.

¶46

Keeping in view the ab o ve said facts, it would appea r that the learned Family Court has prima f acie misread the evidence/ I D Documents on record. The determinatio n of the disputed relationshi p between th e parties was integral and funda m ental to the matter and ough t to have b e en first established by the learned Family Court befor e proceeding t o pass any interim direction o n merits. In view of the above , the present petition is allowed, and the i m pugned order is set aside. It i s however clarified that this Court is not re t urning any final finding on th e merits of th e matter, which can only be de t ermined by the learned Famil y Court after appraisal of the entire evidence t o be produced by the parties.

¶47

Pending application(s) if a ny also stand(s) disposed of.

¶48

18.11.2024 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶49

SUNENA 2024.11.22 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gurbaksh Singh v. Jasmail Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurbaksh Singh v. Jasmail Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Amarjit Kaur Mander and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Jagindro Bai and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Charanjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Another

Rahul Arora Vs State of Haryana

Sandeep Singh Vs Sunita and Anr.