LAWS(DLH)-1994-2-26

SUBHASH VERMA Vs. NEELAM

Decided On February 09, 1994
SUBHASH VERMA Appellant
V/S
NEELAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Subhash Verma 'has filed this petition thereby challenging the order dated 13.10.1993 of Shri O.P, Dwivedi, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, vide which the revision petition of Smt.Neelam was allowed and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was directed to assess the quantum of maintenance payable to Smt.Neelam, petitioner No. 1.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that Smt.neelam and her minor daughter Kumari Sonia (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioners') filed a petition for maintenance against Shri Subhash Verma (hereinafter referred to as the 'husband') for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). Averments made in the aforesaid petition were that Smt.Neelam was married to Subhash Verma on 20.9.1977 according to hindu rites and she started residing with her husband. It was further pleaded that from the very beginning Suhash Verma started maltreating her and ultimately she was turned out of the matrimonial home in September, 1979 and while staying at the house of her parents she gave birth to adaughter, viz. Sonia, on 1.10.1979. It was also claimed that after sometime the husband filed a petition for divorce against the wife on the ground of desertion and ultimately a decree of divorce was passed on 22.9.1984. It was claimed that she was not having means to maintain herself and her daughter and the husband was neglecting them and, so, a claim was made for a sum of Rs.500.00 per month for the wife and a sum of Rs.500.00 per month for the daughter. ,

(3.) The application was contested by the husband and ultimately vide order dated 27.2.1993 the husband was asked to pay maintenance to his daughter Sonia at the rate of Rs.200.00 per month from the date of application but the application of the wife for the grant of maintenance was dismissed on the ground that she was guilty of desertion, as was held by the matrimonial court and, thus, not entitled to maintenance.