MUNNA YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Opposite party No. 2 Smt. Susheela Devi filed an application on 18.9.1987 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Upon the allegations that she was married to the revisionist according to Hindu rites and customs, came to resides with the revisionist after the marriage and performed her marital obligations. About four years back he fell into wrong habits, started taking intoxicant and fell into the company of ill repute women and when she objected she was beaten. He was also complaining about the dowry given by her father, in marriage and was demanding more dowry. She was being harassed and cruelly treated. For the aforesaid reasons and in the month of October, 1984, the revisionist deprived her to her clothes and ornaments beat her and threw her out of the house. She claimed Rs. 400/- per month as maintenance allowance stating that the revisionist is earning Rs. 800/- per month.

(2.) The revisionist had not dispute the marriage but stated that she was married about 11 years back when she was of about seven or eight years of age. Gauna ceremony was held about three years back. She came to his house. It was then that he found her to be of unsound mind. She was unable to discharge her marital obligations. He complained about it to her father whereupon a Panchayat of the community was held in which their marriage was dissolved by consent. He assailed the marriage on the ground that it was not in accordance with Hindu rites and customs and the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(3.) The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced in the case came to the conclusion that Smt. Susheela Devi is not of unsound mind, that the marriage was not in violation of Hindu Marriage Act and is therefore a valid marriage and that the revisionist failed to prove that the marriage was dissolved as alleged in the W.S. If further came to the conclusion that Smt. Susheela Devi failed to prove that the revisionist was taking intoxicants or was visiting women of ill repute and that she also failed to prove that he was earring Rs. 800/- per month. The Trial Court was further of the opinion that a minor dispute between husband and wife would not entitle her to claim maintenance. The application was rejected.