RAJESHWARI Vs. SHRI SURYAKANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is wife's petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Court's Act from the judgment and order dated 30.9.1999.

(2.) THE revision Petitioner along with her daughter had filed a petition under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance. There is no dispute between the parties that the revision Petitioner and the Respondent had been married and are husband and wife and from the marital relationship of the two, a daughter Kum. Sonia was born. The trial Court granted the maintenance in favour of Kum. Sonia, daughter of present revision Petitioner and her husband, but refused to grant any maintenance to the present revision Petitioner on the ground that under law wife is not entitled to live separately and to claim maintenance unless the wife establishes sufficient cause and just ground for living separately and for refusing to live with her husband. The trial Court opined that she had failed to establish sufficient cause or just ground for living separately and to claim maintenance. Feeling aggrieved from the order whereby the trial Court had rejected the claim of the revision Petitioner for maintenance, the revision Petitioner has come up before this Court.

(3.) IF a person carries on with a lady and betrays her and marries some other woman, that may be a circumstance that in order to take revenge, the lady with whom the husband had been carrying on relationship, contacts the parents of the wife and narrates her relationship with their son -in -law, then considering those circumstances, the Court below should have applied its mind to such circumstances. It appears that on no substantial grounds the Court below has refused to rely on the evidence and the finding really appears to be perverse and incorrect. I set aside that part of the finding on issue No. 2 given by the trial Court. This fact that Respondent was carrying on with Geeta Patil or keeping her as a concubine or anything like that, whether in his own house or at different place, could really provide a sufficient ground to the revision Petitioner for refusing to live with the Respondent and entitle her to claim maintenance.