URMILA TIWARI Vs. CHANDRIKA PRASAD TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT (wife) has filed this revision against the order dated 14.1.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandla in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1/2004, dismissing her application for maintenance filed against the respondent (husband) under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) CASE of the applicant is that she was married to the respondent on 13.5.1962. After marriage, she continued to live with her husband till 1969. Thereafter, she fell seriously ill, therefore, her father took her and got her treated in the hospital. According to her, respondent did not care for her treatment and also demanded Rs. 20,000/- from her. Since the year 1969, she resided at her father's house. Since her father died and her brothers were able to look after only their families and she had no sufficient means of herself for maintenance, she filed an application for maintenance in the year 1989, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 24.4.1995. She then filed the present application on 3.5.2000. According to the applicant, her daughter Anita continued to live with the respondent. Respondent performed her marriage without her consent and without informing her and he too married again another woman. The respondent was posted as Chemist in the Bhilai Steel Plant and was getting Rs. 20,000/- per month, therefore, she was entitled to receive maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month from him.

(3.) CONSIDERING the evidence led by both the parties, learned Magistrate held that it was not established that the applicant was unable to maintain herself. The conduct of the applicant in filing the application for maintenance after about 21 years and not even caring to look after her daughter whom she had left at the house of her husband, was enough to establish that she lived separate voluntarily without any sufficient cause. It was also found that the respondent retired in the year 1998 and that he was getting no pension. The fund, which he received on his retirement was spent by him on marriage of his daughter Anita. At the age of about 65 years, in the circumstances of the case, it was not possible to presume that the respondent who retired in the year 1998 had sufficient means to maintain the applicant. Eventually, learned Magistrate dismissed the application.