MUNNI DEVI Vs. OM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT. Munni Devi, hereinafter called the applicant, filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC 1973 claiming maintenance against her husband Om Pal, opposite party. The Munsif-Magistrate, Etah, who tried the case, vide his order dated 8th October, 1976, allowed the application and directed the opposite party to pay maintenance to the applicant at the rate of Rs.75/- per mensem with, effect from 1st April, 1975. Aggrieved against it Om Pal opposite party filed a revision in the court of Sessions. The learned III Addl. Sessions Judge, Etah, who heard the revision, allowed the revision and dismissed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC because the applicant did not lead evidence to prove that she was unable to maintain herself. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned III Addl. Sessions Judge, SMT. Munni Devi filed the present revision.

(2.) WHEN the revision came up before a learned single Judge of this Court, it was reiterated on behalf off the opposite party that, in view of the decisions of this court in case Man Mohan Singh v. Smt. Mohindra Kaur, 1976 AWC 335, the applicant could not be granted any maintenance because iit was not proved by her that she was unable to maintain herself. The learned single Judge found it difficult to agree with the view expressed in the aforesaid decision and, accordingly, directed that this case may be listed ben fore a larger Bench. It is thus that the present revision has come up before us.

(3.) THE precise question that arises in the context of the aforesaid facts is whether the applicant's claim for maintenance could be refused on the ground that she did not lead evidence in proof of the fact that she was unable to maintain herself, even though she had raised a plea to that effect in the application which was not controverted at any stage by the opposite party.