THAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. A. Rahim, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 13-5-1997 passed by the Judge Family Court, Bareilly in Case No. 373 of 1995 granting Rs. 350 per month to the opposite party No. 2 under Section 125, Cr. P. C. with effect from the date of application.

(2.) THE revisionist has challenged the said order on the ground that essential re quirement of neglect and refusal of the hus band to maintain the wife, opposite party No. 2 has not been proved. It is stated that opposite party No. 2 has separated herse lf without any just and reasonable cause. In fact, she has been guilty of wilfully deser tion. THEre is no evidence of torture to op posite party No. 2 who is not entitled to the maintenance since she is an able-bodied iady. In this revision this Court is not en titled to re- assess the evidence and come to a different conclusion. What is required to be seen is whether the learned trial court has considered all the ingredients required for the purpose of adjudicating the application for maintenance.

(3.) IN recent decision reported in 1995 A. C. C. 35, Hardeo Singh v. Slate ofu. P, it is held that if the husband become a Sadhu it does not absolve him from duty to maintain his wife and children. So an able-bodied husband is bound to maintain his wife. As regards the desertion by the revisionist to his wife it was the case of the wife that after they married her husband claimed Rs. 10,000 and one motor-cycle and since they were unable to pay her husband had deserted her after causing assault. The said allegation was denied by the other side. His case is that on the occasion of 'tfcej' she went to her father's place and did not return and that he was willing to take her back. The learned trial Judge was of the opinion that since opposite party-husband did not file any suit for restitution of conjugal rights his claim does not hold good. Moreover, it is stated by him in written statement that his wife wanted to marry for the second time but nothing has been stated in his deposition. Accordingly the trial Judge held that op posite party- husband on false plea wanted to avoid his wife.