HASAMUDDIN Vs. BUNDO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. The opposite party Smt. Bundo is wife of Hasamuddin petitioner. She moved an application under Sec. 125 Crimial P.C. for maintenance and it was allowed by the learned Maintenance awarding her a sum of Rs. 150.00 as monthly allowance for her maintenance. The petitioner preferred a revision which was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before the court that both the Court below did not properly decide the question of neglect, cruelty and second marriage and the amount of maintenance fixed is excessive. Perused the affidavit, copies of the statements and other documents filed by the petitioner and heard arguments advanced by the petitioner's counsel. It does not appear to be a fit case in which the impugned order should be interfered with in exercise of inherent powers under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C.

(2.) The question of neglect has been found established by both the courts below and their finding seems to he based on evidence of fact. It is undisputed that Smt. Bundo opposite party is duly wedded wife of Hasmuddin petitioner. It is also undisputed that she lived with the petitioner for a period of about ten years and she could not procreate any child for the petitioner. It is further undisputed that she had been living at her father place for about one year before the presentation of the petition for maintenance. The evidence of Smt. Bundo to the effect that Hasmuddin petitioner used to maltreat her and ultimately turned her out of his house about one year before the presentation of the petition. The evidence given by her on this point seems to have been rightly believed by the courts below. The petitioner Hasmuddin undoubtedly led evidence to the effect that he made efforts to take her hack from her father's house and she refused to come to live with him but the evidence given in support of it was rightly not believed. The finding that Hasmuddin neglected to maintain Smt. Bundo, cannot, therefore, he said to be based on surmises. It on the other hand, appears to he based on proper appreciation of evidence and circumstances of the case.

(3.) The finding that she was treated with cruelty also seems to be based on evidence led in the case. Hasmuddin's second marriage was clearly alleged in the maintenance petition and this allegation was not denied in the written statement of Hasmuddin petitioner Saudagar who was examined as witness on behalf of the petitioner has clearly stated that he found second wife of Hasmuddin living in his house and Hasmuddin admitted before him that she was his second wife. In view of all this, the denial of Hasmuddin the evidence that he has not married second time was rightly not believed by the Courts below. Thus, cruel treatment and keeping of second wife give a just ground to Smt. Bundo to refuse to live with Hasmuddin petitioner.