SIDDALINGAPPA Vs. YELLABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by the husband is directed against the order dated 29-8-1981 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur in Criminal Revision Petition 4 of 1981 partly allowing the said petition. The learned Judge maintained the finding of the Court below that the petitioner has neglected and refused to maintain his wife, but reduced the quantum of maintenance from Rs. 150 per month to Rs. 100/- per month from the date of the petition.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are: The wife of the petitioner filed a petition under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month on the following allegations. That their marriage took place about 9 years ago as per custom prevailing in Hindu Society in Guttargi Village and they lived happily for five years as husband and wife. Thereafter at the instance of his step-mother, the husband began to illtreat the wife and cause her injury and she has also taken treatment in Sindgi Hospital. The husband had once sent the wife to her parents house and at the intervention of elders and well-wishers of the family, the husband was advised to treat his wife properly and she went back to her husband. But in spite of the said, advice, he continued to illtreat his wife and she had to leave his house. The father of the wife is too poor and he is not in a position to maintain himself and as such he cannot maintain his daughter. The husband has also taken a second wife on 13/3/1980, in Kakkalmeli Gumpa, i.e. one Suwamma d/o Hanamant Harijan of Nagavi, and leading a marital life with her. She has also stated that the husband owns two houses, agricultural lands measuring about 40 acres and getting about 100 bags of corn every year which would be approximately Rs. 10,000/- in value. If that is so, she contended that the husband has refused and neglected to maintain her in addition to his taking a second wife and she is not able to maintain herself and prayed for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month.

(3.) The husband resisted the application and denied all the allegations made therein. He has stated that he is willing to lead a marital life with the wife and that the wife herself left the house at the instance of her father, stating that she would lead marital life with him only if he resides separately. He has stated that he has not illtreated and sent her voluntarily to her parents house. He has stated that he is not in a position to maintain the petitioner separately. This father is an aged man and he cannot leave him and live separately with the wife. He has denied the allegation that he owns two houses and six lands. He has also stated that the wife has three lands and one sreedhana property and therefore she has no right to seek separate maintenance as she has got independent income of her own.