ISHWAR SINGH Vs. MAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application was filed by Shrimati Maya Devi under Section 488 CrPC claiming maintenance allowance from her husband. Her case was that she was the legally married wife of Ishwar Singh Tyagi ; that her husband had developed illicit relations with one Shrimati Kashmiri the wife of Rohtash Gusain of his village. When she complained to her husband, he beat her, deprived her of all ornaments and clothes and left her at her father's house. The opposite party had failed to maintain her. He has .100 Big has of land of which the annual income is Rs. 40,000/-. Shrimati Maya Devi claimed maintenance allowance of Rs. 500/- per month.

(2.) THESE allegations were denied by the opposite party Ishwar Singh. He denied his illicit connection with Shrimati Kashmiri. He also denied having deprived Shrimati Maya Devi of her ornaments and clothes. His case was that Shrimati Maya Devi had gone to her father's place in order to join the marriage of his younger sister. He went to her house a number of times to call her but she did not come with him. Ishwar Singh admitted that he had only 50 Bighas of land but he denied [his liability to maintain his wife. The Stub Divisional Magistrate, Hapur rejected the claim of Maya Devi. Aggrieved thereby a revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, Meerut, which has been allowed on 24th April, 1976. Hence this revision.

(3.) FROM the above definition it is obvious that the word 'keep' connotes an idea of actual physical possession. In other words if the mistress lives with the husband at his residence, he would in law be deemed to have kept her as his mistress within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 125 CrPC. That interpretation appears to be reasonable also. If the mistress does not live at the house of the husband then the legally wedded wife cannot have a just ground to refuse to live with her husband. Difficulty arises only when the mistress and the legally married wife have to live together which becomes intolerable to either party. Therefore, the explanation provides that if the husband keeps the mistress with him the wife can rightly refuse to live with her husband. As such if the husband merely has illicit relations with the mistress, who does not live with him, a sufficient motive or ground is not afforded to the wife to refuse to stay with her husband. It would be a different matter altogether if, as a result of this illicit intimacy with a mistress, the husband begins to ill-treat his wife, then certainly the wife would be entitled to separate residence and maintenance. But, if the husband continues to treat his wife with all honour and dignity to which she is entitled and affords all the amenities for her maintenance, in that case, merely because the husband has a mistress living elsewhere, would not be a sufficient ground for the wife to claim a right of separate residence and maintenance.