LUCHAN KISAN Vs. PUNI KISANEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the husband, the opposite party in the Court below, in a proceeding under Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure who has been ordered to pay a monthly allowance of Rs. 40/ - to his wife (the Petitioner in the Court below) for her maintenance, and Rs. 30/ - only as costs of the proceeding.

(2.) THE wife 's case in the proceeding under Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure is that she is the married wife of the Petitioner herein, and that she lived with him as such for about 11 years. In 1967 her husband ill -treated her, did not provide her with food, assaulted her and did not take care of her during her sickness. In the month of Kartik that year she fell ill and her husband did not take care to get her treated, and so she was brought to her father 's house for treatment. Ever since that time her husband did not go to call her. She also alleged that her husband married for the second time in 1969. This allegation of second marriage could not, however, be substantiated by the wife.

(3.) THE Court below on an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, has believed the wife 's case that she was ill -treated by her husband (the Petitioner herein), who did not provide her with food, assaulted and tortured her, did not take care of her during her sickness, did not go to bring her back from her father 's house by reconciling the difference existing between them for about two years. It also finds that the husband 's offer to maintain ' the wife if she comes back to his house is not genuine and rather is a mala fide one. On the aforesaid findings, and on the finding of the financial ability of the husband, the Court below has ordered that the husband shall pay an allowance of Rs. 40/. per month to his wife (the opposite party in this provision) for her maintenance from the date of her filing of the aforesaid petition. It is also ordered that the husband should pay to his wife a consolidated sum of Rs. 30/. as costs of the proceeding. The above findings of fact could not successfully be assailed on any convincing ground.