HANUMANTRAO Vs. VIJAYMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. The petitioner husband by this petition seeks to challenge the order of maintenance allowance as passed by the Courts below. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has urged the following two points: (1) That the application for maintenance was filed after a long lapse of time (2) The ground of cruelty, as alleged by the respondent wife has not been made out.

(2.) TAKING up first, the second ground urged by the learned counsel, the trial Court in para 6 of its order, on appreciation of evidence has come to the conclusion that the petitioner -husband has neglected the respondent wife, in maintaining her. The Revisional Court below has also affirmed the order passed by the trial Court. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge goes to show, that this point was not pressed before the Revisional Court. Paragraph 8 of the impugned order starts with the statement that the impugned order (trial Court) has been challenged on behalf of Hanumantrao, mainly on the ground that the maintenance petition was filed 12 years after separation. It is thus, clear that the ground of cruelty which is now sought to be raised, was not raised before the lower Revisional Court. In a petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. such a new ground, should not be permitted to be raised, even than the learned counsel has been heard, on the point of cruelty.

(3.) A perusal of the statement of respondent wife Vijaymala P.W. 1 in her cross -objection it was suggested that she did not turn -up to her in -laws even when her uncle -in -law Sadasbivrao died. The other suggestion which had been thrown to her; that she failed to attend the marriage of Hanumantrao's sister Nirmala and the reply given by her, to these suggestions was that, she was neither informed nor invited. Not inviting wife at the occasion of sister's marriage is indicative of the attitude which the petitioner had towards his wife. Cruelty is not necessarily physical cruelty, it can be even mental cruelty and one such instance can be gathered from the cross -examination of Vijaymala. The other instance which can be quoted is to be found in paragraph 15 of her statement where an abortive suggestion was made to the witness suggesting that she had been suffering from slip -discover since her child -hood and as such she had become quite incapable of giving any amorous or pleasures to her husband. The suggestion has not only been repelled but reading in the context of the petitioner's conduct in inflicting physical torture, as deposed to by the respondent wife and pleaded in her petition, amply goes to show that, cruelty in both its forms physical as well as mental was meted out to the petitioner. In this context, it was suggested by the petitioner husband that as if it was he, who had got her treated but even this suggestion was repelled and the respondent wife stated in suggestion to such a question that while under treatment, she stayed with her sister, neglect is writ large. Another suggestion thrown to her that on the day she left she had picked up a quarrel with neighbours which of course has met a denial. Then the suggestion was that she had picked up such a quarrel with her father -in -law and mother -in -law which again met with a denial and she has all along maintained that she had been driven -out by her husband the present petitioner and his parents. The suggestion that she has severed all relations with them has been repelled in her cross -examination. All these references, have become necessary because the question of cruelty was raised by the learned counsel which in fact was not raised at the lower revisional stage.