LAWS(ALL)-1997-5-63

BIMLA Vs. MADAN MOHAN SINGH

Decided On May 06, 1997
BIMLA Appellant
V/S
MADAN MOHAN SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. C. Srivastava, J. This revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 4th September, 1995 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Criminal Revision No. 314 of 1993.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this revision are that an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by Smt. Bimala, Revisionist before the concerned Magistrate, which was allowed on 15th September, 1993 with direction to the opposite party to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 200 per month to the revisionist and Rs. 100 per month to the minor daughter, till she attained majority. Revision was preferred against the order which was partly allowed and partly dismissed. Maintenance allowance for the minor daughter was maintained, but maintenance allowance to the wife was refused. It is, therefore, this revision.

(3.) IF husband makes unfounded allegation of unchastity against his wife or makes allegation that his wife is living in adultery with some one else or has developed illicit connection with some one else and if such founded allegation is not supported by eye evidence it certainly constitutes mental cruelty to the wife and on the ground of such mental cruelty the wife is entitled to live separately from her husband. The judgment or the revisional court that there is no evidence on this allegation cannot be appreciated. The allegation in paragraph 13 of the written statement was made by the husband and the wife claiming maintenance was not required to adduce evidence on this point. The allegation of the husband in the written statement itself could be read as allegation of unchastity against the wife which constitutes mental cruelty towards the wife. The husband was also not required to adduce evidence on the point. Moreover in cross- examination he made certain statements which have been reproduced above and these statements confirmed that he made unfounded allegation of unchastity against his wife. Wife was, therefore, entitled to get maintenance from her husband.