BALAKRAM Vs. DURGABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARGUMENTS heard.

(2.) NON -appellants No. 1 to 4 filed a petition under section 125 of the CrPC for grant of maintenance against the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 claims herself to be the wife and other respondents claim themselves to be the children of the petitioner. The petition was combated by the petitioner. After trial, the trial Court recorded the findings that the petitioner having sufficient means neglected or refused to maintain his wife and children and granted maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month to wife and @ Rs. 300/- per month to each of respondents No. 2, 3 and 4. Being aggrieved, by the judgment of the trial Court petitioner filed a revision before Illrd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara which was also dismissed. It is this order of the revisional Court which is the cause of grievance of the petitioner.

(3.) I have perused the record. The petitioner filed a copy of decree for restitution of conjugal rights which was exhibited as document D-1. But this document was not considered at all either by the trial Court or by the revisional Court. Where the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in favour of the applicant and against the wife and despite this decree the wife did not go to live with the husband, the husband was not under an obligation to maintain her (wife). There is no evidence that after the decree respondent No. 1 went to live with the husband and the husband subjected her to cruelty. No satisfactory evidence has been given that there was just ground for the wife to refuse to live with the husband.