The main legal point established in the judgment is that the maintenance granted under Section 125 of CrPC to minor children is recoverable from the estate of the deceased father, and the obligation to maintain one's wife or children is a measure of social justice.

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J.

Challenging the order of release of maintenance to minor children, born from another woman, granted to them during the lifetime of their father, his widow and son admittedly from the lawful marriage, have come up before this Court, by way of filing a petition under Section of 482 Cr.P.C. seeking reversal of the orders passed by Judicial Magistrate Kandaghat, Solan, HP, and affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Solan, HP, ordering the release of arrears to the children, payable from the Estate of their deceased father.

2. The facts apposite to decide the present controversy trace their origin to the Petition No.34/4 of 07/2005, decided on 17.9.2012, by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. This petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed by Leela Devi claiming herself to be the wife of Bhagwan Singh; and her two minor children, namely, Kumari Uma Devi and Master Narinder Singh, claiming themselves to have been born due to coitus between Bhagwan Singh and Leela Devi during the subsistence of their marriage. Leela Devi had stated in the said petition that she was married to Bhagwan Singh somewhere around the year 1988. The wedding was performed, as per customs of the village prevalent, between the parties. She further stated that during the subsistence of the marriage, two children were born. She also stated that the behavior of Bhagwan Singh started turning from bad to worse and he had become Alcoholic. She further stated that as she was unable to cope up with the cruel acts and habit of intoxication of Bhagwas Singh, she along with her children had no option but to take shelter in her maternal home. She further stated that Bhagwan Singh was drawing a salary from his Government service and also had income from the agriculture pursuits and thus, she claimed maintenance to the extent of Rs. 3,000/- per month, for each of the claimants.

3. In reply to the petition, Bhagwan Singh denied Leela Devi to be his legally wedded wife and also denied that the children mentioned earlier were born from their wedlock. Bhagwan Singh claimed that he was married to one Tara Devi, following Hindu rites. He alleged that Leela Devi had married one Sunder Singh, however, after some time, she had disserted him and without getting a legal separation or divorce from said Sunder Singh, had started living with one Inder Singh, who after some time, disserted her. He stated that he had helped Leela Devi in her pitiable condition because she had no roof to cover, no place to stay and no earnings to sustain, he gave her shelter on humanitarian grounds, and in return, Leela Devi used to do agriculture work under the supervision of Tara Devi, wife of Bhagwan Singh. He explicitly denied marriage between him and Leela Devi. Bhagwan Singh also stated that from the wedlock between him and his legally wedded wife Tara Devi, three children were born, out of whom, a son and a daughter survived.

4. In rejoinder, Leela Devi explained that Bhagwan Singh had brought Tara Devi much after he had married her. It was further stated that said Tara Devi was already married to one Keshav Ram at village Ghaar and the said marriage was subsisting and never annulled.

5. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kandaghat, Solan, HP, vide judgment dated 17.9.2012, passed in the said petition filed under Section 125 of CrPC, relying upon the proved facts that Tara Devi had filed a petition for bigamy against Bhagwan Singh in the year 1995 and also a petition under Section 125 of CrPC for maintenance, which was indelible evidence, held that Tara Devi was legally wedded wife of Bhagwan Singh. In conclusion, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class held that Leela Devi could not prove herself to be the wife of Bhagwan Singh and as such, was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. However, the Ld. Judicial Magistrate held that minor children, namely, Kumari Uma Devi and Master Narinder Singh were born due to coi