CHANDRA BHAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of proceedings under Section 488 CrPC. The Sub-divisional Magis trate had allowed the petition of Smt. Bitti Devi by his order dated 12th of January 1973 and awarded Rs. 40/- per month as maintenance allowance to Smt. Bitti Devi. Cr. Revision No. 17 of 1973 was filed before the lower court which was dismissed by the II Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge by his order dated 8-5- 1973. THIS second revision was then filed under the old CrPC.

(2.) THE petition under Section 488 CrPC. was pressed on the ground that Smt. Bitti Devi was the legally wedded wife of Chandrabhan Singh, that her jewellery had been taken away by her in laws and she was ill-treated. She had, therefore, to leave her husband's place. Her father-in-law had com plained for her disappearance from the house. She complained to her husband about the same. Her husband was satisfied about the bad behaviour of his father towards her. But he failed to maintain her. It was further alleged that the husband had contacted a second marriage. When she learnt about it, she sent a registered notice. She then went to village Ruseypur along with her cousin Sheobaran Singh (P. W. 4) but she could not succeed in getting the marriage avoided. THE evidence on the point of second marriage was also corroborated by Kishan Murari (PW 5).

(3.) FEELING aggrieved, Chandrabhan Singh has filed this revision. Learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that there is no legal evidence about the second marriage as no eye-witnesses of the second marriage have been examined who could prove the ceremonies accord ing to the Hindu rites. Kishan Murari (PW 5) has given evidence that he had actually seen that Barat had arrived and the reception of Barat was taking place. He also stated that he had a talk with Bachcha Singh, father of the girl who was to be married but he was not prepared to stop the marriage. Smt. Bitti Devi and her cousin Sheobaran Singh (PW 4) have given similar state ments. There was, therefore, sufficient evidence for arriving at the conclusion that the second marriage had taken place even though this evidence may fall short for the prosecution under Section 494 IPC. For purposes of Sec tion 488 CrPC. it would be quite a just ground for the wife to refuse to stay with her husband even if he kept a mistress and not a regularly wedded wife. In any view of the matter that is not the only question which the court has to take into consideration. False accusations have been made against Smt. Bitti Devi that she was of loose character. Even evidence was led to the effect that Smt. Bitti Devi was found in the house of a prostitute or other persons. Witnesses, however, could not stand the test of cross-exami nation. The learned Magistrate, there fore, rightly held that the evidence led on this point was not reliable. Even a false report had been lodged to effect that she had eloped. All these things amount to acts of extreme cruelty. A woman is not expected to live at a place where she is not given proper respect which is due to her as wife. I, there fore, agree with the conclusions arrived at by the lower courts.