BISHAMBHAR DASS Vs. ANGURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has arisen out of a case Under Section 125 of the Cr. PC

(2.) SMT. Anguri (O. P. no. 1) is the legally wedded wife of the applicant (Bishambhar Dass ). They were married some time in the year 1944. After their marriage they lived a normal married life for some years and even a daughter was born out of their wedlock. Things were, however, not destined to be smooth and differences started growing up between them. It is said that the applicant was a man of loose morals and developed illicit intimacy with one Smt. Jagwati. Opposite party No. 1 resented this thing and asked the applicant to mend his manners but he would not listen to her. Instead, his attitude towards her hardened and very often he ill-treated her. He even turned her out from his house. Some well-wishers intervened and a reconciliation took place between them. The applicant promised not to have any connection with Smt. Jagwati and opposite party no. 1 then moved to his house. It is further said that after about 5 years or so, the applicant again took to bad habits and developed intimacy with another woman, named, Shakuntala. He was also said to have taken to drinking and gambling. His wrath again fell on opposite party no. 1 and he turned her out from his house. Being under distress, she filed the present petition and claimed Rs. 250/-per month by way of maintenance.

(3.) THE applicant admitted his marriage with opposite-party no. 1. He, however, denied to have fallen into any of the bad habits as alleged by opposite-party no. 1 in her petition, His contention is that from the very beginning there was incompatibility between them and she felt great diffidence in living with him. Likewise, he also found it difficult to live with her. They, therefore, entered into a written agreement dated 2-4-1954 and mutually agreed to live separately. According to terms of the agreement, he paid her a sum of Rs. 3,500/- as future maintenance allowance. Thereafter he was not to have any relations with her. In view of the aforesaid agreement, he averred that the opposite-party No. 1 was not entitled to claim anything by way of maintenance from him. In any event, he alleged, that the amount of Rs. 250/-claimed by opposite-party no. 1 as maintenance was highly excessive.