BABLU Vs. SATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Mangi, applicant (respondent no. 2 herein) filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband/opposite party (revisionist herein) for grant of maintenance allowance for herself along with her minor children. She pleaded that she was married to Bablu on 11.02.2002 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Her in-laws started harassing her for want of bringing sufficient dowry. Two children Km. Radha and master Harsh were begotten out of her wedlock with Bablu. Her husband ousted her from her matrimonial home. A panchayat was convened in which Bablu tendered apology and took her to his house. Her husband again ousted her from her matrimonial home. She was asked to bring cash and scooter. She was unable to fulfill demand of her husband, who was a tailor by profession and also owned a grocery shop. Bablu admitted marriage with Smt. Mangi. He also admitted that two children were begotten by Smt. Mangi out of her wedlock with him. He, however, said that he met with an accident and became physically challenged. His wife wants to dissolve the marriage, but he does not want divorce and, therefore, he instituted a case under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act,1955 for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court at District Saharanpur.

(2.) Pw 1 Smt. Mangi, PW 2 Pala Singh and PW 3 Ravi Kumar were examined on behalf of the womanapplicant. The copies of compromise and agreement dated 26.03.2003 and 10.01.2004 were filed. Bablu examined himself as DW 1. He also filed the certified copies of the litigations pending between him and his wife. He also filed a copy of disability certificate to show that he was physically challenged. Learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar, considered the evidence thus brought on record by the parties and came to the conclusion that the husband treated his wife with cruelty. There were sufficient reasons for the woman-applicant to live separately from her husband. The husband owed a duty to maintain his wife, but he failed to discharge his moral and legal duty. The applicant, in the instant case, was unable to maintain herself. It was evidenced that the opposite party/ husband neglected his wife and two minor children. Learned Additional Judge, Family Court, therefore, committed no mistake in allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. holding that the opposite party/revisionist refused to maintain his wife and minor children, for no just reason.

(3.) Although opposite party-husband, in the instant case, appeared to be physically challenged person, nevertheless, he was a tailor master. Nowhere it has been brought on record that his physical disability has adversely affected his art of tailoring. The statement of the applicant that revisionist-husband owned a grocery shop was nowhere controverted.