RADHA BAI Vs. UMRAO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Sec. 96 of the Civil Procedure Code by plaintiff against the dismissal of her suit for maintenance under Sec. 18(a) and (b) of the Hindu Adoption Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the 'Act').

(2.) The plaintiff's case is that she was married in 'kari' form prevalent in their community, with the respondent/defendant Unrao Singh in or about 1964. They carried on well for about 2 years and she gave birth to a female child. Lack of proper post delivery care and adequate comforts resulted in her illness. Her elder brother took her back to her parent's village Richha. After about 21/2 years she filed Misc. Criminal Case No. 35/69 under Sec. 488 of the Code Criminal Procedure in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Narsimhapur. On 14.5.1971, the respondent compromised the claim vide Ex. D1-C. Since the respondent failed to give effect to the compromise, despite notice dated 24.5.1971, she filed another petition for maintenance vide Misc. Criminal Case No. 8/72 which was dismissed by order dated 5.1.1976 (Ex.P4) Revision against the said order 4 of 1976 was dismissed by order dated 25.2.1977. After service of notice dated 5.4.1977 and receipt of reply dated 25.4.1977 (Ex. D-7), she filed the present suit in forma pauperis on 29.6.1977 on the grounds of illtreatment, wilful neglect to maintain amounting to desertion. She claimed maintenance @ Rs. 200.00 P.M. She alleged that the respondent has an annual income of atleast Rs. 25,000.00 from agricultural lands in three villages. She therefore claimed maintenance @ Rs. 200.00 p.m.

(3.) The respondent while admitting his marriage with plaintiff, denied the rest of the allegations in the petition. He denied that he illtreated her or that he ever abandoned her. According to him she is living in her parent's house of her own accord and against his consent. After decision of the revision filed by the plaintiff, he sent his son Rajaram (not examined) and other people to village Gwari to bring her but the plaintiff did not come. He had always been treating her well. He offered to maintain her in his house but, the plaintiff, without any just and reasonable cause, has been refusing to live with him. Therefore she is not entitled to any maintenance. He is just an ordinary agriculturist, the income is barely sufficient to maintain him.