MADAN LAL Vs. RAJNI BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge has arisen out of an application, filed under section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure, against the petitioner by Rajni Bala respondent, claiming maintenance for herself and her minor daughter Babli Bhalla, respondent.

(2.) I he allegations made in the application were to the following effect. Rajni Bala was married to the petitioner on the 13th December, 1965, in accordance with Hindu rites. Out of the wedlock, Babli Bhalla, respondent, was born and was 15 months' old on the date of the making of the application. The minor daughter was residing with her mother Rajni Bala. The petitioner his brother and his mother indulged in the sale of illicit liquor and had asked Rajni Bala to co-operate with them in selling illicit liquor. On her refusal, Rajni Bala was beaten and maltreated. In the first week of April, 1967, Rajni Bala. was mercilessly beaten by the petitioner and his inother and brother as she had objected to the petitioner's trading in illicit liquor. Rajni Bala had, tired of beating and maltreatment left the house of her husband on the 8th April, J 967. She had, on that date, lodged a report at the Police Station Karolbagh. Rajni Bala's father had also filed a report at the same police station alleging that the petitioner was carrying on trade in illicit liquor. The petitioner's house was raided and the petitioner and his brother were challaned under section 6! of the Punjab Excise Act. Rajni Bald prayed that she and her daughter may be granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150.00 per month.

(3.) The petitioner contested the application. He admitted that Rajni Bala was married to him on the 13th December, 1965, and that Babli Bhalla respondent was born out of the wedlock. The petitioner denied the alligations about beating and maltreatment. He, further, denied that he was carrying on the trade of illicit liquor. The petitioner asserted that he was working as Tyre-Inspector in Good Year Factory at Balabgarh. The petitioner admitted that a case under section 61, Punjab Excise Act, was filed against him, his brother and father but pleaded that all of them had been acquitted as the case was a false one. The petitioner, further, pleaded that Rajni Bala had left his house of her own accord and in his absence and had taken away all the ornaments. As Rajni Bala had left the company of the petitioner, without any reason she according to the petitioner was not entitled to any maintenance.