SUSHMA VERMA Vs. GOPAL KUMAR VERMA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against judgment and order dated 2.6.1999, passed by Judge, Family Court rejecting the petition of revisionist and partly allowed the maintenance under Section 125, Cr PC. The learned Judge, Family Court rejected the claim of maintenance of wife while allowed the claim of the maintenance of daughter. Before discussing the case on merit it may be stated that the counsel of both the parties argued in detail in respect of facts of the case. However, in revision, the finding of fact cannot be disturbed unless they are perverse. There is no dispute between the parties about their relationship. The complainant alleged that she was wife of the Opp. Party No. 1 and this fact was not disputed by the revisionist. The question, therefore, was whether the wife had left the company of her husband and started residing separately without sufficient cause and whether she had her independent source of income or not. Again these two points are findings of facts. The allegation of the complainant was that she was treated with cruelty and was sent to her parents' house after badly beaten by her husband. The complainant had also made allegations of adultering against her husband. All these facts were denied by the opposite party. The learned lower Court considered the evidence on this point and the learned lower Court came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient evidence about marpeet, injuries etc. The learned lower Court has held that the complainant has failed to prove the charge of adultering of the husband. The learned lower Court disbelieved the version of cruelty, harassment and torture on the ground of illicit relation of her husband with other woman. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the learned lower Court did not consider the relevant facts and evidence in this case. I am not convinced with this contention. The learned lower Court has discussed each and every fact and has come to the conclusion that there was no harassment and torture by the husband nor there was any dowry demand. It is also held that the complainant left the company of her husband without any sufficient ground and, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the learned lower Court had held that the complainant was graduate and could earn herself. It is further contended that unless she was employed and earning, it cannot be held that she was able to maintain herself. The learned lower Court has held that at present, the complainant was not earning. However, it was held that because she was graduate, she could earn and it cannot be held that she was not able to earn herself. Although this finding does not suffer with any illegality, but even if it is deemed that she was not earning herself, still she was not entitled for maintenance because it has been held by the learned lower Court that she left the company of her husband without sufficient cause and, therefore, on that ground itself she was not entitled for maintenance. Learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance upon. The facts of the case, however are different and no help can be taken from the above-noted case law because in this case, it is not proved that the husband has contracted marriage with any other woman or kept her as mistress. The wife, therefore, had no ground for refusing to live with her husband. Considering the above facts, there is no force in this revision which is hereby dismissed.