Pala Singh vs Paramjit Kaur

S.S. Grewal, J.

This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) relates to quashment of order dated 14.7.87, passed on application, moved under section 125 of the Code by Paramjit Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the wife) on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter Jyoti, against Pala Singh (hereinafter referred to as the husband) whereby the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/ per month to the wife and Rs. 50/ per month to the daughter from the date of the application, as well as order dated 2.7.1988 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot whereby the revision petition filed by the husband was dismissed.

In brief, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, as find" mention in the petition under section 125 of the Code are, that the marriage between Paramjit Kaur and Pala Singh took place in June, 1984. Relations between the husband and the wife remained cordial for first three months. Thereafter the husband started demanding Rs. 5,000/ from his fatherinlaw, who, could not fulfil that demand. The husband gave beating to his wife on several occasions. He ultimately turned her out from his house and she went to the house of her parents. At the intervention of the respectables, she came to the house of her husband who again misbehaved with her and ultimately turned her out from his house. Thereafter, parents of the wife took Panchayat to the husband and requested him to keep the wife with him amicably, but, he refused to do so. Jyoti was born out of the said wedlock, who, is still residing with her mother. On behalf of the wife and the child it was pleaded that they were unable to maintain themselves, whereas the husband had sufficient means to maintain his wife and their minor daughter. The petition was resisted on behalf of the husband on the ground that after three months of their marriage, the wife herself went away to the house of her parents without any sufficient cause, as she wanted that her husband should live separately from his parents. The husband made several efforts to bring his wife and took panchayats, but the wife refused to come and live with her husband.

In the present case, on behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that the husband throughout has been ready and willing to keep the wife and their minor daughter with him; that the wife had left the husband without any sufficient reason and on that account she is not entitled to any maintenance. It was further contended that after three months of the marriage, the wife left the house of her husband and refused to live with him until and unless he lived separately from his parents.

The argument is devoid of any merit from the perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Court, it is quite apparent that the husband initially filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife but he got the same dismissed for nonprosecution and did not pay the interim maintenance in that case. Besides there is sufficient evidence on the record that the husband acted with cruelty towards the wife and turned her out from his house. In these circumstances, mere fact that the wife insisted that the husband should live separately from his parents would not be sufficient to hold that the offer of the husband to keep his wife with him is genuine. Nor in the circumstance of the present case it can be reasonably inferred that the wife has withdrawn from the society of the husband without any sufficient cause.

It was next submitted on behalf of the husband that he suffers from first of epilepsy and as such he is not in a position to earn and the husband has no property in his own name. Admittedly, no medical evidence has been produced on the record to prove the precise nature of the illness of the husband. Nor, there is any legal, cogent, or reliable evidence on the record from which it can be reasonably inferred that the husband who is an ablebodied person of the age of 22 years, is not in a position to earn anything. Rather from the material on the record it can be reasonably inferred that he has earning capacity. He lives and works with his father who is an agriculturist. The maintenance awarded by the learned trial Court is quite meagre and in these days of high prices may be just sufficient for the wife and the minor daughter to maintain themselves,

For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.