SHRAVAN KUMAR Vs. USHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the order dated 17-12-1979 passed by Sri Satya Narain Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Rae Bareli in Criminal case no. 36 of 1979 ordering the revisionist Shravan Kumar to pay a sum of Rs. 50/- per month as maintenance to his wife.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Explanation in sub-clause (3) of Section 125 CrPC if a husband contracts marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him. Finding regarding re-marriage is not perverse etc. So there has been negligence and refusal to maintain and the wife was justified in refusing to live with her husband.

(3.) IN his statement the husband has not suggested that the wife has some income and that she is able to maintain herself. The wife is living with her parents and this cannot amount to an inference that she is able to maintain herself. She is taking shelter with her parents which cannot be described as a permanent arrangement nor it can be said that she is able to maintain herself because her parents for the time being are maintaining her. The words 'unable to maintain' have nothing to do with the potential earning capacity of the wife. The concept of able-bodied person cannot be extended to the wife because it will defeat the very object of the legislature and it will involve roving and endless enquiry about such ability, capacity, avenues and opportunities which the law on this point does not intend. The wife is a worker in Aangan Bari Mahraura Centre under Samanvit Bal Vikas Yojna in Development Block Baohharawan, destrict Rae Bareli, (Services are liable to be terminated at any time without notice). The husband is not maintaining her. She has somehow managed to get a job with honorarium only. She has stated in the affidavit that she is not earning Rs. 200/- per month as honorarium. So under the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 50/- per month fixed as maintenance allowance is clearly reasonable and the finding of the learned Magistrate on this score cannot be condemned as perverse, illegal etc. It was contended that the learned Magistrate has not given any finding regarding the income of the husband. The Magistrate has clearly stated in his judgment that PW 3 Nanhoo has stated that the income of the husband is Rs. 500/- per month and his personal income is Rs. 60/- per month. The learned Magistrate also took into consideration the fact that the husband was residing with his father who has five-six bighas of land. He gets food, clothes etc. from his father. He can earn more. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence and circumstances, the learned Magistrate could conclude that he has sufficient means and that he is able to maintain his wife. So it is immaterial that the learned Magistrate has not given his income in so many words and in exact figures. He has awarded Rs. 50/- per month as maintenance and under the circumstances of the case the husband can pay the aforesaid amount to his wife who is unable to maintain herself. Even if the wife is getting about Rs. 125/- per month as honorarium for a temporary job, it cannot be said that this amount is sufficient to pull on in these hard days. IN short the learned Magistrate rightly awarded Rs. 50/- per month as maintenance to his wife and I find no illegality etc. warranting interference with the impugned order. The revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.