GURBAX SINGH Vs. JASWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties were married on 24-6-1983. Differences appear to have arisen between them when the respondent was 3-1/2 months pregnant. According to her, she was harassed on account of inadequate dowry and ultimately turned out of the house. She made an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for her maintenance with the averment that the income of the husband was 30,000/- per annum. She claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. In reply, the husband denied having income of Rs. 30.000/- per annum, did not give his own estimate of the income and alleged that the wife herself was earning, Rs. 500/- per month. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class fixed the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month for wife and at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month for the minor daughter Ranjeet Kaur. The order fixing interim maintenance was not complied with. Ultimately, by order dated 28-9-1987 the Judicial Magistrate struck out the defence of the respondent husband and refixed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month. The husband filed a revision which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, by impugned order dated 29-10-1988. In the order the learned Sessions Judge observed that any able bodied person would be able to earn Rs. 700/- per month and the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month could not, therefore, be described as excessive and there was no case for interference by the said revisional court.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has made a two-fold submission. He pointed out that the petitioner (husband) had lost his right arm in between wrist and elbow joint while using a thrashing machine and he, therefore, could not be considered to be able-bodied and that the learned Magistrate as well as the revisional Court had failed to apprise evidence on record. It is factually incorrect to say that the Courts below did not evaluate the evidence on record. The evidence on record which was perused with the assistance of both the learned counsel shows that the husband has an income of about Rs. 30,000/- per annum, that his father owns land, has a tractor and trolley etc. The husband has a life-long liability to maintain his wife under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The amount of Rs. 250/- cannot be considered to be excessive. There is no merit in the petition. It is, therefore, dismissed.