KRISHNA KUMARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of Shri H. L. Sikka, S. D. M. New Delhi dated 28/5/1966, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner u/s 488 Criminal Procedure Code .

(2.) The respondent resisted the petition filed by the petitioner. The respondent denied to have mal-treated the petitioner or to have beaten her. The respondent alleged that the petitioner was living in adultery with her sister's husband. The respondent admitted that his petition for divorce had been dismissed but stated that he had filed an appeal in the High Court which was pending. The respondent maintained that the petitioner was not entitled to any maintenance. The petitioner in support of her case, besides examining herself, examined P.W. 2, Phool Chand. The respondent in support of his case, besides examining himself, examined DW. I Methoo Lal Dhobi, DW. 2 Hardevi (mother), DW. 3 Amar Chand, shopkeeper.

(3.) The respondent was given notice of this petition but he has not chosen to put in appearance. Afterhearing the learned counsel of the petitioner and on going through the record, I am of the view that the respondent has neglected to maintain the petitioner and that the finding of the Magistrate that the petitioner was living in adultery with her H brother-in-law, cannot be sustained. In the written statement, the respondent has alleged that the petitioner was living in adultery with her sister's husband. The 'respondent has not given any particular adultery committed by the petitioner. DW. 1. Methoo Lal Dhobi stated that the parties quarrelled as respondent wanted that the petitioner should not visit Murli. The witness stated that no quarrel took place between the parties over dowry. The witness further stated that his brother saw the petitoner visiting Murii in subzimandi a number of times. In my view the evidence of DW. 1 does not establish that the petitioner was living in adultery with Murli. The evidence of this witness appears to be interested. DW. 2 Hardevi, mother of the respondent stated that once in the afternoon she had seen petitioner and Murii lying on a cot and they were embracing each other. In cross-examination, the witness stated that she did not remember the date or the month when she saw them in a compromising position. She further stated that she did not inform her son of what she had seen. It is impossible to believe that Murii would have gone to the house of the respondent and in day time, he would have tried to misbehave with the wife of the respondent in the manner alleged by DW. 2. It is further not possible to believe that DW. 2 would not have informed her son of what she had seen, if that was true. DW. 4 Sunder Dasn stated that in the beginning, the petitioner suggested to him different poses for sexual intercourse and this created suspicion in his mind. According to the respondent on one afternoon, he went to the house of Murli and he saw his wife with Murli on one cot. According to the respondent, his relations with the petitioner got strained as he wanted the petitioner not to visit Murli but she insisted on meeting Murli.