MITHLESH KUMARI Vs. BINDHAWASANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision is against the judgement and order dated 20-1-1983 of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad allowing the Criminal Revision preferred against the judgement and order dated 11-5-1982 passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Sitapur, Faizabad in a case under S.125, Cr. P.C.

(2.) Smt. Mithlesh Kumari revisionist is wife of Bindhawasani opposite party 1. Their marriage was undisputedly celebrated on 1-3-1979. It is undisputed that in the month of July, 1980 a daughter was born to Smt. Mithlesh Kumari. Smt. Mithlesh Kumari, filed petition for maintenance under S.125 Cr. P.C. on 25-5-1981 claiming it at the rate of Rs. 300/- per mensem for herself and the minor daughter. It was filed on the allegations that Bindhawasani and his family members used to pass taunts for bringing less dowry and used to ill-treat her. Bindhawasani was always pressing her to ask her father to give him one Scooter otherwise he would have second wife. When the daughter was born, the petitioner fell ill but her husband did not make any proper arrangement for her medical treatment and sent her to father's place for it. When the petitioner recovered, her father sent an intimation to her husband and his family members to take the petitioner to their house but none came due to which her father himself took her to her husband's place and left her there. The opposite party again pressed his demand for Scooter. Her father showed his inability to give Scooter thereupon the opposite party threatened for his second marriage and turned her out of the house. The opposite party thereafter contracted second marriage on 6-5-1981 and the petitioner and her minor daughter are living at her father's place. The opposite party, thus, neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner though he has sufficient means and the petitioner and her minor daughter are unable to maintain themselves.

(3.) The opposite party contested the claim for maintenance. He pleaded that he lives in a village along with his family members and does not possess sufficient means. The petitioner belongs to a well to do family. Her father is a Driver and lives in Maudaha town district Faizabad. He owns Pakka house and 8 rooms his house are on rent. The petitioner has no liking for living in a village and does not take interest in doing domestic work. She started pressing soon after the marriage that he should live along with her in Maudaha town to which he did not agree. She is, therefore, living in Maudaha town out of her own accord and she is not entitled to any maintenance. He made several attempts to bring the petitioner to live in his house but she did not come. The allegations of ill-treatment and demand of dowry and contracting second marriage were denied. It was also pleaded by him that he is prepared to maintain her if she live with him in his house.