AMAR NATH KAPUR Vs. PRAN NATH KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision, filed by Shrimati Kamla Khanna, through her father and next friend Amar Nath Kapur, is directed against the judgement of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, affirming on revision the decision of the trial Court, whereby an application under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by the petitioner against Pran Nath Khanna, respondent, was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Shrimati Kamla Khanna, petitioner, and Pran Nath Khanna, respondent, were married in Delhi on 24th February 1949. They have had no issue from the marriage. They lived together from 1949 till 1957. In 1957, when the parties were living at Calcutta where the respondent was posted as an Estate Officer, Shrimati Kamla showed signs of insanity. In 1958 Shrimati Kamla was brought to Delhi and was left at her father Amar Nath's place. In April 1959, the respondent was posted in Delhi. In June 1960, a Reception Order, as envisaged by Section 7 of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912, was made by the Additional District Magistrate, Delhi, in respect of Shrimati Kamla and on 23rd June 1960 Shrimati Kamla was admitted in the Mental Hospital, Ranchi, in pursuance of that order. During her stay in the hospital the respondent used to pay Rs. 200 per mensem to meet the expenses of Shrimati Kamla. Besides that, the Delhi Administration contributed Rs. 150 per mensem. On 21st February 1961 the Additional District Magistrate of Delhi passed the following order, presumably under Section 33 of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 in the presence of Amar Nath Kapur and the respondent :-

(3.) On 10th November, 1961, Amar Nath Kapur, father of Shrimati Kamla, filed application under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for award of Rs. 500 per mensem as maintenance for her. The ground, on which maintenance was sought, was that the respondent had refused and neglected to maintain Shrimati Kamla or to contribute any amount towards her living expenses. A ground was also taken that the respondent had treated Shrimati Kamla with cruelty as a result of which she developed schizophrenia.