RAM BAHADUR Vs. GULAB DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision arises out of an order of maintenance passed by a I Class Magistrate in proceedings u/S. 488 of the CrPC.

(2.) There is no controversy that the applicant is the husband of the opposite party Smt. Gulab Devi. They were married about 16 years ago but as the wife did not bear any children differences arose and the wife left for her father's home and ultimately made an application u/S. 488 Crimial P.C. for an order of maintenance against the applicant. The case set forward by the wife was that on account of the misfortune that no child had been born to her, her husband started ill-treating her and had turned her out with the result that she took residence with her father and notwithstanding an attempt to bring about reconciliation the applicant refused to maintain her and had not maintained her for a considerable view. The (sic) by the applicant in reply was that on account of failure to give birth to any child the opposite-party herself had become ill-tempered, that he had never ill treated her or turned her out, that on a particular day when he was away on duty the wife had left his house for her father's place taking with her ornaments and clothes of considerable value and that, inspite of attempts by him to bring her back to his house, he had failed.

(3.) As regards the amount of maintenance, the case set forward by the wife was that the applicant was a driver in the Roadways Department getting a salary of about Rs. 150.00 per month besides mileage. The husband, i.e., the applicant, admitted in the course of his statement that he was in receipt of a monthly pay of Rs. 148/- This was coupled with a statement that he had no other source of income. Further, the plea set forward by the applicant in the written statement was that with the aid of the money she had removed from his house she, along with her father and brother, resorted to the business of sale of miscellaneous goods at Melas and other festivals and thus she was in receipt of an income of Rs. 100.00 per month. In the statement made by the applicant also he stated substantially to the same effect. Nothing has been pointed out to indicate that during the course of her statement before the learned Magistrate Smt. Gulab Devi denied the aforesaid allegation and learned counsel for the applicant has pointed to the fact apparent from an application dated June 6, 1968, on record, that an attempt on the part of the applicant, during the course of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate, to establish that at time the wife went away to her father's home she took away cash and ornaments and that she was in receipt in income in a sum of about Rs. 100.00 per month, as mentioned earlier in this order, was not permitted by the learned Magistrate who appears to have taken the view that certain questions to the above officer which were sought to be permitted to be put to the wife were irrelevant in proceedings u/S. 488 CrPC.