GOVINDACHARI Vs. SHANTAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule in revision is obtained by Govindachari against the order made by the learned Magistrate under S.125(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, awarding Rs. 75 per month as maintenance to the respondent wife Smt. Shantakumari. The petitioner married the respondent on 16-6-1974 and it appears differences arose between them after a fort-night of the celebration of their marriage. The husband who is the present petitioner is a police constable. According to the wife Smt. Shantakumari, the husband had some suspicion that she was talking with her village people and under that pretext he used to beat her with sticks and belts. Similarly, her mother-in-law also illtreated her. After living with the petitioner for about a year and a few months, she was finally left with her parents. Since then she was neglected or refused by the husband. The petitioner also sent two letters, Exts.P-1 and P-2, which he wrote to her father and her bro her and in these letters the petitioner mentioned that in case the respondent was not returning, he would marry a second wife. There is also another significant .statement in one of the letters that the wife had even threatened to commit suicide while she was staying with the husband. It does not stand to reason that a young woman soon after marriage would think of committing suicide. The petitioner very much admitted in his sta.ement before the Magistrate that he was only asking his wife not to see people who used to visit the house from her village. He also stated that when he went to fetch his wife, he was given illtreatment by his father-in-law as well as his brother-in-law. That was entirely due to the fact that the girl had complained to them that she was given constant beating by the husband.

(2.) In a case under S.125(1) the wife who is unable to maintain herself is required to prove that her husband is having sufficient means, but even then he neglects or refuses to maintain her. The learned counsel for the petitioner took up the plea under Sub-sec (4), in as much as he submitted, that the husband was willing to maintain her and hence there was no sufficient reason for the wife to refuse to live with him. The present offer of the husband to maintain the wife may not be very material. It is to be considered if during the period of neglect or refusal on the part of the husband to give maintenance to her, the wife had sufficient reason to live separate from him. On that question the learned Magistrate gave a finding in favour of the wife, and I too consider that a different view could not be taken. When there was a consistent history of beatings and other acts of cruelties, may be due to some unfounded suspicion as to her fidelity, the wife had every right to live separate from the husband. Accordingly she went and started living at her parents' house. It is difficult, in the circumstances, to infer that she is living separate without any sufficient reason or that she refuses to live with her husband.

(3.) The learned counsel then relied upon Exts.D-1 to D-25, the letters written by the sister of the wife to the petitioner or his parents. In my opinion, these letters will not carry much weight. The learned counsel for the respondent read over and explained to me the two statements, one of the wife and the other of the husband and from those statements the only inference that could be drawn was that the husband illtreated his wife for some assumed suspicion as to her fidelity. There was no evidence otherwise to question the fidelity of the wife. It appears, the husband being the police constable was somewhat harsh in his treatment. The wife could not resist and broke, with the result, that she went to live with her parents. There was a clear case of neglect and refusal and in my opinion, it could not be stated that the respondent lives away from her husband without any sufficient reason.