HSYED AHMAD Vs. NAGHATH PARVEEN TAJ BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned City Magistrate, Bangalore, in Criminal Misc. No. 16 of 1956. It is an order passed under Section 488, Cr. P. C. The petitioner is the husband. The respondent is his wife.

(2.) The petitioner is an advocate practising in the City of Bangalore. He is a young man aged about 28 years. He married respondent on 17-1-1955. She was about 16 or 17 years old at the time of her marriage. The parties come from very respectable families. The marriage was performed with due pomp and ceremony. The young couple stirred their life with love and affection. The petitioner presented a number of jewels to his wife. The petitioner says that he even purchased a car to humour his wife. But their happiness was short lived. Very soon after their marriage they seemed to have differed on small matters, and made mountains of mole hills. I have carefully scanned the evidence on record to find out the cause of this disagreement. I am unable to find any reasonable explanation, The petitioner complains that his wife was always conscious of the fact that she is the daughter of a District Superintendent of Police and she was more attached to her parents than to him. The respondent's grievance is that her husband is a fault finder. She alleged cruelty, But the learned Magistrate who enquired into the case has come to the conclusion that the cruelty alleged has not been established. I agree with him. The parties seem to have been more conscious of their rights than their obligations. It is a case of immaturity on one side and jealousy on the other; a clear case of temparamental maladjustment. They refused to bend but were willing to break. Immediately after the first flush was over they seem to have started quarrelling. It is the case of the husband that his wife went to her parents' place on 1-10-1955, promising to return within a week. She refused to return. He and his relatives went to her parents" house and implored her to come back and begged of her parents to send her. His further grievance is that his father-in-law did not treat him fairly and he was more or less shown the door. On the other hand the, complaint of the wife is that it is the husband that had dropped her at her parents place after ill-treating her for a number of days. She also alleges that he came to her parents' house in the middle of November and assaulted her and later he tried to take her forcibly. She was afraid of her life and hence declined to go. I regret that these young people have been lacking in discretion. The greater regret is that their parents who ought to know better, instead of bringing to bear their sober influence on these young people seemed to have wrecked their future by standing on prestige. Events seem to have moved in quick succession. As I said before the marriage took place on 17-4-1955, the wife went to her parents' house in about the beginning of October, 1955; letters and notices passed between the parties in the month of November each accusing the other of being responsible for the unhappy impasse. The husband married a second wife in about the end of November, 1955 and the maintenance application was filed on 15-12-1955. At no stage there was any real attempt at settlement. Each one was trying to dictate to the other. They were not even willing to allow things to cool down.

(3.) The learned Magistrate who tried the ease awarded maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. In his judgment the very fact of second marriage which is not disputed in this case entitled the wife to claim separate maintenance.