Rajbala vs Satbir Singh

Ajit Singh Bains, J.

Smt. Raj Bala filed an application for maintenance under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, against her husband Satbir Singh Respondent and the learned trial Magistrate allowed maintenance of Rs. 100/ per mensem from the date of the application. Dissatisfied by the order of the learned Magistrate, the husbandrespondent filed the revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, who allowed the same and set aside the order of the trial Magistrate and dismissed the application of Raj Bala under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. Hence this revision petition by Raj Bala (wife) against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal.

Admittedly, the parties were married in the year 1970. Thereafter they have been living together at various places. Out of their wedlock, one son was born in 1972 and he died in 1975. The relations between the husband and the wife became strained and the husband started maltreating the wife and ultimately turned her out of the house on 9th June, 1980. Since then she is living with her parents.

According to the petitioner (wife) she has no means to maintain herself and the husband (respondent) has neglected her and refused to maintain her. Both the husband and wife were also examined by me on 6th February, 1984. The husband was ready to take his wife with him but the petitioner refused to go with him on the ground that he has remarried and also illtreats her.

The trial Court found that the petitioner had no sufficient means and the husband (respondent) had neglected her and refused to maintain her. Marriage between the parties is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is living separately from the husband since June, 1980 and the husband (respondent) is a Government employee and is drawing Rs. 700/ per month.

The petitioner herself appeared as A.W. 1 and examined her father Harphool as A.W. 2 and Kehar Singh as A.W. 3. Her husband also appeared as R.W. 1 and examined three witnesses, namely, Chandan Singh as R.W. 2, Mauji Ram as R.W. 3 and H.C. Dharam Singh as R.W. 3. The petitioner, her father Harphool and Kehar Singh A.Ws have support the version of the petitioner that the petitioner was illtreated and was turned out of the house and she is living with her parents since June, 1980 and that she has no independent means to support her and that the respondent has neglected her. According to the respondent, the petitioner had run away from the house without the knowledge of anybody and that he did not neglect her or maltreat her. RWs. Chandan Singh and Mauji Ram have supported his version.

After perusal of the evidence on the record, I am of the view that the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not justified. It was stated at the Bar by the counsel for the petitioner that a complaint under section 494, Indian Penal Code, is pending against the husband respondent as he has married second time. Be that as it may, I am of the view that the husband has neglected the petitioner and refused to maintain her since June, 1980 and that the petitioner is entitled to the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 100/ per month. The responsibility of the husband is firstly towards his wife and not towards his parents or minors brothers. It is true that the old parents are also to be looked after but, wife is also to be maintained by the husband.

For the reasons recorded, this petition is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and that of the learned Magistrate is restored.