RAM RATAN Vs. STATE THROUGH SMT. RANVIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a husband's application for revision of an order passed by a Magistrate of Bulandshahr on 12 -11 -1968 u/S. 488 sub -S. (1) CrPC holding that the husband, who was the opposite party before the Magistrate, had neglected to maintain his wife, the complainant, and, therefore, a payment of Rs. 100/ - every month by the opposite party to the complainant wife be made from the date of the order. The wife had applied to the Magistrate on various grounds which were that she was the lawfully wedded wife of the opposite party who had married her seven or eight years prior to her application made on 24 -11 -1967; that, she had been to the village of the opposite party on three or four occasions after the marriage and had lived there as his wife, but he had maltreated her on each occasion so that there were quarrels between the husband and wife making it very difficult for her to live with him; that she, therefore, did not like to live with the husband and came away to her father's house four years before the filing of the application; that, in 1963, the husband came to the applicant's village, Parsol, in district Bulandshahr, and stayed there for several days; that, when the opposite party husband wanted to take the applicant to his house she asked him how she could live with him when he wanted to remarry, but that she was prepared to go and live with him if he undertook not to remarry; that the opposite party husband, thereupon, left her at her father's house after threatening to repudiate her and has actually remarried a lady of Thana Parsol, in the year 1965 so that she cannot now go and reside with him, that the husband tells her that she should also remarry; that, she comes from a respectable family and cannot remarry but wants to live at her father's house while continuing to be the wife of the opposite party; that, the applicant's father is between 70 to 80 years old so that there is no certainty about his life and she cannot be maintained by him permanently; that, the opposite party has 250 to 300 bighas of land and an income of about Rs. 2000/ - per year so that she is entitled to Rs. 200/ - per month as maintenance allowance.

(2.) The husband, who is the applicant in this Court had filed an objection admitting the marriage and alleged that his wife had left him four years previously despite his objections and was unwilling to stay with him inspite of his importunities. He also stated that he had gone several times to fetch his wife from village Parsol where she had gone and started living at her father's house and had tried to persuade her to come back but she was not willing. He stated that his wife and her father had insisted on his giving a writing that he will have nothing to do with the complainant, and, therefore, he had given it to them. He stated that he was willing to keep the complainant as his wife and offered to do so by means of his objection on 24 -11 -1967. He denied his capacity to pay Rs. 200/ - per month or his willingness to pay anything to the complainant if she was not willing to live with him as his wife. It is significant that, in his reply, the husband had neither denied that he has remarried in 1965 nor that his marriage with the opposite party continued.

(3.) Both sides tried to support their versions by some evidence. The complaining wife stepped into witness box to put forward her side of the case and also produced her brother Hoshiar Singh, Sub -Inspector of Police, to support her statement. It is true that the statements relating to the maltreatment of the wife by the husband are not supported by particulars. The evidence of Hoshiar Singh also appears to be based largely on hearsay. Nevertheless, it could not be said that there is no evidence to support the version of the complaining wife. Moreover, even if there were no oral evidence, based on personal knowledge of the wife, Smt. Ranbiri, or of her brother Hoshiar Singh, to support the al legation that the applicant Ram Ratan had remarried in 1965, it seems to me that the failure of the husband to controvert the allegation that he had married again in 1965 was an implied admission which justified the findings given by the Magistrate that, another wife having been taken by Ram Ratan, it could not be said that the refusal of the wife to go and live with him was not justified. It may be mentioned here that the opening sentence of evidence of Ram Ratan was: Smt. Ranbiri is my Gharwali. This meant that he still acknowledges her as his lawfully wedded wife. It may also be mentioned that, far from relying upon the document which has now been put forward in assertion of a claim that there was a customary divorce or repudiation of the wife by the husband, the applicant husband had actually suggested that the document was only executed by him as a result of pressure and that he was willing to keep Smt. Ranbiri with him as his weeded wife.