VIDYAWATI Vs. KISHEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Kishen married Vidyawati on March 16, 1983. Out of the said wedlock three children were born including one daughter. According to Vidyawati, her matrimonial life was not happy. The husband was in the habit of consuming alcohol and creating chaos in the family. Many a times he assaulted Vidyawati and her children.

(2.) In the year 2008, Shri Kishen pushed her out of the house. Since then she was in precarious condition and supporting her livelihood by working as domestic help. However, due to ill-health she had to stop work for the last two months before making of the application. In the meantime, Shri Kishen obtained a decree for divorce against Vidyawati ex parte. Vidyawati filed an application for setting aside the decree that is awaiting decision from the Civil Court.

(3.) The appellate order impugned herein, would relate to an order passed by the learned Magistrate under the provisions of section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. She prayed for maintenance at the rate of Rs.7000/- per month. Significant to note, Shri Kishen was working under the Marine Mercantile Department and was earning about Rs.24,000/- as contended by Vidyawati before the learned Magistrate. The husband contested the application. According to him, Vidyawati was self sufficient. She got appointment as Midwife in the G.B.Pant Hospital, Port Blair in leave vacancy. She was also a political activist and earning therefrom. She had illicit relationship with one Hari Lal that became the reason for disharmony in the family. Sri Kishen denied, she was driven out from the house. According to him, she herself left the house in the month of January, 2006 and started residing with Hari Lal after marrying him in a rental accommodation at South Point. Vidyawati examined herself as PW.1 and one K.J.Rajendra Prasad as PW.2 whereas Shri Kishen himself as OPW No.1 and his daughter Kumari Kiranwati as OPW No.2. During cross-examination PW.1 categorically denied the allegations brought against her by OPW No.1. However, the husband as well as OPW No.2, the daughter of the couple deposed as against her. We would be shortly referring to the evidence of OPW No.2 that would be relevant herein. The learned Magistrate considered the evidence. In paragraph 25 of the examination-in-chief, the husband deposed, in the month of March 2006 he was not keeping well and came back home when he found Vidyawati and Hari Lal in a compromising position. In paragraph 27, he asserted, Vidyawati and Hari Lal was residing for last five years as husband and wife. During crossexamination, Shri Kishen deposed, his eldest son was aged about 27 years and working as Security Guard and his youngest son was also working as Supervisor. The daughter was, however, studying. During cross-examination, he denied to take back his wife. OPW No.2 in her examination-in-chief admitted the relationship between her mother and Hari Lal. She also deposed, her mother left the house of her own. During cross-examination she, however, stated, " I do not know whether my mother resides with her brother Sat Lall or not." She was 23 years old at the time of cross-examination. She admitted, her mother's health was bad. She was admitted in hospital. She also deposed, there was no family interference for which her mother left.