KALKA Vs. FAMILY COURT JHANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Bhaggo opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance allowance for herself and her minor son Manoj opposite party No. 3 stating in brief that she is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. They were married about 26 years back. She lived with him for about 12 years and performed her marital obligations as a result of which Manoj was born. About 8 years back her husband turned her arid their son out of the house after depriving her of the ornaments and clothes Since then she is residing with her father. It was said that has become difficult for her father to maintain her and their son due to financial stringency and therefore, she was obliged to file application for maintenance. She claimed Rs. 1000/- as maintenance allowance for her and their son stating that the revisionist has about 3 acres of land and is earning about Rs. 30,000/- per annum. He is also dealing in milk and is earning about Rs. 1500/- per month. It was also alleged that the revisionist is under the influence of the wife of his cousin and for that reason she was turned out of the house.

(2.) The revisionist contested this application. He did not dispute that Smt. Bhaggo is his legally wedded wife and Manoj their son. According to him opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 went from his house only about five months back and then did not return. He denied the allegations of cruelty made in the application stating that she had gone with all her ornaments but it appears that these ornaments were disposed of by her parents. He expressed his willingness to keep her with his stating that the allegations made against the wife of his cousin are wrong and that he has only two bighas of land and is not in a position to pay her maintenance allowance as claimed by her. Upon a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case the Judge, Family Court, came to the conclusion that on account of ill-treatment and cruelty of the revisionist his wife and son are living separately and that he is in a position to pay the maintenance allowance. Accordingly, Rs. 500/- per month was fixed as maintenance allowance. Aggrieved by it the husband has come to this Court in revision.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and have perused the record. None appeared on behalf of the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 to contest the revision. The first point urged is that the revisionist did not treat his wife cruelty as alleged in the application nor he is under the influence of the wife of his cousin and that the opposite party No. 2 left the house out of her own will and therefore, is not entitled to get any maintenance allowance. In the context it was also argued that he is willing to bring back his wife and also served noticce upon her to come back and live with him but she did not listen and for that reason he had to file a suit for restoration of conjugal rights, which is still pending.