Kuldeep Singh vs Kamaljeet Kaur on 5 September, 2017

CR No.5257 of 2016 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CR No.5257 of 2016
Date of Decision-05.09.2017

Kuldeep Singh … Petitioner
Versus
Kamaljeet Kaur … Respondent

CORAM:-HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present: Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
***
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.

[1]. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 02.07.2016

passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby application

under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent

was allowed along with grant of litigation expenses.

[2]. Respondent was tried for the murder of her son i.e. son

of the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.140 dated 19.12.2010

under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station

Nakodar. Respondent and Satbir Singh were convicted and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of life and to

pay fine of Rs.1000/- each under Sections 120-B/302 IPC. Both the

sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

1 of 4
10-09-2017 10:06:39 :::
CR No.5257 of 2016 2

[3]. The allegations were that son of the petitioner namely

Satinderjit Singh was poisoned by the respondent as she was

having illicit relations with Satbir Singh in the absence of the

petitioner. Respondent and Satbir Singh had a doubt that Satinderjit

Singh may not disclose this fact to his father i.e. petitioner, therefore

they had entered into a conspiracy for killing Satinderjit Singh.

[4]. During the trial of the criminal case, guilt of the

respondent and her paramour was found to the hilt and they were

accordingly convicted and sentenced in the manner as disclosed

earlier. At the relevant stage, the petitioner was living in Italy.

[5]. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu

Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage between the parties. During

pendency of the said petition, respondent filed an

application/petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

[6]. The said application was contested by the petitioner on

the ground that the respondent had become unchaste and

therefore, she was not entitled to any maintenance either under

Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act or under Section 18 of the Hindu

Adoption and Maintenance Act. On the allegations of unchastity, the

respondent had already been convicted. Since the respondent was

found to be having illicit relations with co-accused Satbir Singh and

has not remained chaste, therefore, she was not entitled to any

maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act.

2 of 4
10-09-2017 10:06:40 :::
CR No.5257 of 2016 3

[7]. Trial Court awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month

as maintenance pendente lite and an amount of Rs.15,000/-as

litigation expenses. Since the respondent is in custody, therefore,

her entitlement has been curtailed to Rs.5000/- per month during

her period of custody and on her release, she would be entitled to

Rs.10,000/- per month maintenance as awarded by the Additional

District Judge, Jalandhar.

[8]. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite

her service in jail. Office report dated 15.10.2016 is suggestive of

the fact that notice issued to the respondent was duly served. The

respondent has been convicted and sentenced for the murder of

son of the parties and is undergoing sentence in the jail. The

petition for divorce was filed only after her conviction by the Court of

Sessions, therefore, in such situation, provision in terms of Section

24 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be treated to be mandatory in

view of guilt of the respondent under Section 302 IPC in collusion

with her paramour. It was proved that the respondent was living in

infidelity with her own sweet will. Even in terms of Section 18(3) of

the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and Section 25 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, the maintenance can be denied to a lady who

has become unchaste. The factum of respondent being unchaste

has been proved by way of her conviction along with her paramour

and above all, the allegations were of killing of her own son in order

to screen her illegitimate relationship with her paramour.

3 of 4
10-09-2017 10:06:40 :::
CR No.5257 of 2016 4

[9]. In view of material on record, I find that the impugned

order granting maintenance to the respondent is on wrong premise.

Therefore, the order dated 02.07.2016 passed by Additional District

Judge, Jalandhar, is set aside. Application under Section 24 of the

Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent is dismissed in toto. It

has come on record that the appeal against judgment of conviction

and order of sentence is pending. If the respondent is acquitted of

the charges in appeal, she would be entitled to seek grant of

maintenance pendente lite or permanent alimony whatever the

situation may be at that time in accordance with law. However, the

present order would not create any impediment in the way of any

reconciliatory mechanism between the parties (if any).

(RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
05.09.2017
Prince

Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

4 of 4
10-09-2017 10:06:40 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *