SHEODAN SINGH Vs. LADHO ALIAS LADHWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Sec. 482 Code of Criminal Procedure Sheodan Singh and Kushal Singh, the husband and father -in -law of the opposite party have prayed for quashing the orders passed by the learned v/s. Ith Additional Sessions Judge, Etah, dated 24 -7 -1981 in Criminal case No. 37 of 1981 as well as the order dated 24 -2 -1981 in case No. 702 of 1980 passed by 1st Additional Munsif Magistrate, Etah. Vide its judgment, a certified copy of which has been filed, the Additional Munsif Magistrate allowed the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/ - per month to opposite party No. 1 and Rs. 50/ - and Rs. 25/ - per month to two daughters of opposite party No. 1. That order has been upheld in revision. While the copy of the judgment annexed is not complete, there is a certified copy of the judgment also on the record. While disposing of the revision, it has been made clear that application for maintenance notwithstanding any ambiguity on the point in the judgment of the lower court, stands allowed only against the husband, namely, Sheodan Singh.

(2.) Three points were urged. Firstly it has been urged that husband was prepared to keep opposite party No. 1 as his wife and made such offer and lower court ignored the same. This aspect has been considered by both the courts below overruling the husband's stand. In a proceeding under Sec. 482 Code of Criminal Procedure a finding of fact is not to be disturbed. Apart from that the husband took a stand that the wife is a lady of bad character. When such aspersions are cast without any justification the wife would be fully justified to decline to live with the husband.

(3.) Next point urged is that the husband earns only Rs. 150/ - per month as a teacher and income of his father in view of Chhedilal v/s. Bhanumati, 1973 AWR 342 cannot be taken into consideration at all and in view of the same a total amount of Rs. 175/ - per month could not have been allowed as maintenance. Both the Courts below have considered the aspect. It would appear that in addition to his salary the applicant has also joint family holding. Such holding is definitely an additional source of income. There is a presumption of jointness. There is nothing to suggest that Sheodan Singh has separated from his father and other brothers. It is also difficult to believe that a teacher will be earning only Rs. 150/ - per month. It was argued that the lower court should have recorded a finding about the exact quantum of income from agricultural holding which has not been done. While it would have been desirable to do so in view of Ram Singh v/s. State : AIR 1963 All. 355, any such omission on the part of the lower court would not defeat the claim as such when the finding is there that the family holds 60 bighas of land with four joint land holders including the father. The share of the husband would be 1/4th i.e. 15 bighas. I may observe that it is not a case of revision, on the contrary, the applicants are seeking the exercise of inherent powers of the Court under Sec. 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. The case of Madhu Limaye v/s. State, 1978 AWC 96, also considering the earlier ruling including the case of R.P. Kapoor v/s. State of Punjab : AIR 1960 SC 866 is an authority for the proposition that the powers under Sec. 482 Code of Criminal Procedure are to be very sparingly exercised and when that is the position, this Court will not make any interference.