SHAILKUMARI Vs. PARMARATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .The applicant-wife being aggrieved by the order dated 23-2-2001 passed in Criminal Revision No. 110/98 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli confirming the order dated 24-2-1998 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 76/93 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli rejecting her application for grant of maintenance, has filed this petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C.

(2.) . The facts in nut-sheel are that the applicant filed a petition under S. 125, Cr. P.C. for grant of maintenance inter alia pleading that the applicant was married to the non-applicant, the non-applicant treated her with cruelty, turned her out of the house and contracted second marriage. She also submitted that after desertion by the non-applicant she came to her parents' house where she was maintaining herself but as her father had expired she is unable to maintain herself. In the premises aforesaid, she prayed for maintenance. The respondent inter alia contended that as the applicant did not beget a child, she herself required the non-applicant to contract another marriage and as she herself was a consenting party, the second marriage would not provide any foundation in favour of the present applicant. It was also contended that the applcant was possessed of sufficient means and as she has failed to prove that she is unable to maintain herself, she is not entitled to any maintenance.

(3.) . The parties joined the issue and led evidence. The applicant examined her ownself while the respondent examined his ownself and also examined three more witnesses. The respondent in support of his contention filed as many as five documents to contend that the applicant was possessed of sufficient means. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that as the present applicant was possessed of sufficient land which she had transferred just before the institution of the application, she would not be entitled to any maintenance. The revisional Court observed that from the evidence of the defendant it was clear that the applicant was possessed of sufficient means, therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance.