K SIVARAM Vs. K MANSALAMBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband is the revision petitioner. He filed this revision against the Judgment of the Court of the IInd Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Ongole in M.C. No. 8/1982. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is a handicapped person having lost both his legs due to polio. He is working as an Officer in the Accountant-General's Office at Hyderabad. He married the respondent No. 1 in the month ot December, 1969 who is a deaf and dumb lady; out of sympathy to the handicapped persons. Thereafter they lived amicaly and happily. Respondent No. 2 is the elder daughter born to them on 9-4-1972. Respondent No. 3 is the younger daughter born to them on 27-7-1974, and the family lived happily upto the year 1982. Thereafter, it is the case of the respondents that they were thrown out by tne petitioner from his house on 17-6-1982 by giving them Rs. 70/- and asking them to go to me parent's house ol Respondent No. 1. Accordingly, they went there and mere they lived. thus, they have been neglected to be maintained by the petitioner who is living sufficient means and they have no means to maintain themselves. Therefore, they the petition. The petitioner herein tiled a counter and denied the allegations staling that mere is no refusal of negligence on the part of the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents P. Ws. 1 aad 2 were examined. P.W. 1 is the eider daughter of the petitioner and the 1st respondent. P.W. 2 is the sister's husband of the 1st respondent. The respondeat in M.C. himself, i.e., the husband - petitioner herein, was examined as R.W. 1. The petitioner in M.C. Marked Exs. P-1 to P-7 and the respondent husband marked Exs. D-41 to D-52. The Court below after considering the entire material evidence on record, awarded Rs. 300/- per month towards maintenance of the 1st respondent and Rs. 150/-each to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 per month. The above said maintenance is ordered from the next day of the filing of the petition. Against that order, the present revision is filed.

(2.) It is mainly contended that there is no negligence or refusal to maintain the respondents by the petitioner-husband and this is clear from the admission by the 1st respondent - wife herself in Ex. D-42 deposition of the wife in O.P. No. 75/84 that there was no neglect or refusal. It is to be noted that the very ground in the petition under Sec. 125 Crl P.C. is that they were thrown out and thereafter, they were not maintained, P.W. 1 who is admittedly the daughter of the 1st respondent and the petitioner herein, was aged about 11 years on the date of the examination before the Court. She was put to questions by the Court to find out whether she was able to understand the questions. The Lower Court found that she is quite intelligent to understand the questions, and answers. In her deposition, she stated that her father was residing at Secunderabad and the mother is dumb, and she stated that father started ill-treating her mother and used to beat her with belt and used to threaten her that he would throw them into a well and they have been necked out from the house by giving Rs. 70/-and asking them to go away. Therefore, they went to the mother's place of the 1st respondent at Ongole. She also stated that the petitioner bas sent Rs. 200/- by way of money order, but the same was retuned, she stated that the same was informed to the father but he did not take them. She stated that her paternal grand mother and her father's brother has foisted a case by telling a cock and bull story that her father is working as a Section Officer in the Accountant General's Office at Hyderabad. She is studying pre-matric at Guntur Santha College. She has stated that the father is earning Rs. 1,500/- per month. Hence, they filed a petition for maintenance seeking Rs. 300/- per month for the 1st respondent, Rs. 150/ each per month to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. She stated that the father had deserted the mother. So the case is filed. She also stated that the father harrassed the mother. She stated that she is ready to go and live with the lather, in case he takes the mother along with them: Otherwise, they are not prepared to go and live with the father. She stated that she and her sister are living" at Cuntur for their studies. She further stated that they lelt the house as the father has sent them away. They requested several times to take them back but he refused. She also stated that a number of cases are pending and they engaged advocates. She stated that they have no means to maintain themselves and they are not working anywhere and the 1st respondent is not able to work as she is a handicapped woman. She was cross-examined at length and put to questions regarding the litigations between them, but nothing is dieted to discredit her evidence. Even in the cross-examination, she consistently stated that her father has thrown them away from the house and he ill-treated the mother and beat her. She also denied that the mother made several attempts to commit suicide. She also denied that the mother carried the gold jewellery & other articles worth Rs. 16,000/-. This witness is very young girl and she is the daughter of the petitioner and the respondent No.1 She is no grouse against the petitioner and on the other hand, she got a sympathy to respondent No 1. She is a deaf and dumb, lady and she stated that she is ready to go and live with her father if the 1st respondent is taken along with them But the father's is not ready to take the 1st respondent.

(3.) The evidence of this witness is trustworthy. Her evidence is more reliable because she is the daughter of the petitioner and the 1st respondent and it cannot be said that she will depose falsely against the father if he has not ill treated the 1st respondent. The fact is that the petitioner was thrown out in the month of June, 1982 by giving Rs. 70/- and asking them to go away. She has consistently states so, in her evidence. P. W. 2 is the husband of the sister of the 1st respondent. He also stated that the petitioner has sent away respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Therefore, they came and now studying at Guntur and they have no sotrce to maintenance. He also stated that a case was foisted against him by the petitioner herein. He is a retired Process Server in the Dist. Court af Ongok. Merely because he has given shelter to respondents 1 to 3, it cannot be said that be is deposing falsely. His evidence is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 1. R.W. 1, the petitioner herein denied the allegations that he neglected to maintain respondents 1 to 3. On the dther hand, respondent No. 1 tried to commit suicide and she was not behaving well and she has harassing him, causing him so much mental agony. It is his further case that he never neglected and is teady to maintain her. He filed a number of documents Exs. D-1 to D-52.