ANSUYABEN HEMANTSINGH JADEJA Vs. ANIRUDHSINH HARISINH ZALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-wife filed an application for maintenance on 6/07/1981 in the court of learned JMFC Morbi being Misc. Criminal Application No. 21 of 1982. She claimed maintenance for herself and on behalf of two minor children namely minor son Manharsinh and minor daughter Gayatri. It was alleged that before about nine years from the date of application the marriage between the parties took place as per the Hindu religion and caste custom of the parties That one son Manharsinh and one daughter Gayatri were born out of the wedlock. Till sometime after the marriage she was treated well but later and she was being ill-treated by the paternal aunt and sister of the opponent-husband. Sometimes she was not even given food and was being kept in a position inferior to that of a servant. That in the month of November 1980 she was severely beaten by locking inside the house her lies was in danger. Even when there was heavy flood in Morbi she was not allowed to go to her parents place. As her life was in danger her father had to take police help for securing her custody. She further alleged that the opponent was setting as a Treasury Officer and was earning salary of Rs. 800.00 per month. According to her case the opponent had income from agricultural land and from other property also. On these and other grounds she claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per month for herself and Rs. 100.00 per month for minor son Manharsinh and Rs. 75.00 per month for minor daughter Gayatri.

(2.) The opponent-husband appeared in the proceedings and resisted the same. It was inter alia contended that the petitioner-wife was not being ill-treated. That she was being kept in proper condition and the application was required to be rejected. Before the trial court the petitioner-wife examined herself her father and one witness. In her deposition she did state that the sister of the opponent and his paternal aunt were ill-treating her and she was 40th being given food. Her life was in danger and therefore her father had to take help of the police and take her custody. She also stated that on account of the beating and ill-treatment by the opponent and his family members there were injuries on her back and she was required to take medical treatment also. She gave the name of the doctor also. This part of the evidence is supported by the deposition of her father Hemantsinh Gagubha Exh. 17 Another witness examined was one Chakuba Karansinh Exh. 16 the uncle of the petitioner. He was examined on the point that he had gone to village Sindhawadan for taking the petitioner to her parents house. The opponent also led oral evidence. He examined himself and other witnesses. The trial court on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner-wife had not been able to prove the ill-treatment and cruelty and therefore she was not entitled to stay separate and claim maintenance for herself. However the trial court directed the opponent to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per month for minor son Manharsinh and Rs. 75.00 per month for minor daughter Gayatri. The petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 2t of 1982 before the Court of Sessions at Rajkot. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge who heard the revision application rejected the same as per his order dated 21/01/1983 Hence this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution by the petitioner-wife-original application.

(3.) When the matter came up for hearing on earlier occasion it appears that an attempt was made to bring about settlement between the parties. The Court (Coram: M. B. Shah J.) had suggested to the petitioner to go to the house of the opponent for a period of at least one week. Accordingly on 17/08/1984 the petitioner-wife had gone to the house of the opponent-husband together with two minor children. Thereafter it appears that the parties could not stay together and again the petitioner had come back to her parents house.