DR. DIDAR SINGH Vs. SHRIMATI RAVAIL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is criminal revision by Dr. Didar Singh against his wife Revail Kaur directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur confirming that of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class at Batala granting the wife maintenance allowance of Rs. 100 per mensem under section 488(1), Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE wife filed an application on March 26, 1970 alleging that about thirty years prior to the date of application, she remarried by Chadar Andazi to the husband after the death of Gurpal Singh, her previous husband, brother of Dr. Didar Singh, that the husband took to another wife, Gurbachan Kaur by name and began mal -treating and ignoring her, that he started criminal cases against her, that as a result of wedlock between the husband and the wife, two sons and a daughter were born and that for the last several years, he had neglected and refused to maintain her and the children. She further stated that the husband was Animal Husbandry Officer drawing Rs. 1,000 per mensem. She claimed maintenance allowance of Rs. 500 per mensem. In the written statement on behalf of the husband, it was denied that the wife ever married to him or that any child was born to her as a result of their wedlock and that he had only one wife, Gurbachan Kaur. He admitted that the wife was previously the wife of his brother, Gurpal Singh and that after his death, she had been living with the father of the husband in village Nawan Pind Milkhiwala and not with him at the places, where he had been posted in course of his employment. He added that his father transferred 70 kanals and 4 marlas of land in her name apart from 15 kanals and 6 marlas of land in the name of her two sons, Sarabjit Singh and Baldev Singh and 37 kanals and 4 marlas in the name of her daughter Surinder Kaur. He stated that income from these lands was not less than Rs. 3500 per annum and that that was sufficient to maintain her and the children. At the end, he prayed for dismissal of the application.

(3.) ON appraisal of the evidence, the trial Magistrate found that the wife had been married by Chadar Andazi by the husband on December 26, 1938, that it was as a result of their wedlock that she gave birth to the said two sons and a daughter, that as the husband had neglected and refused to maintain her, she was entitled to claim the maintenance. The income or the husband was held to be Rs. 50 per msnsem. She was granted maintenance allowance of Rs. 100 per mensem. The plea of the husband that the lands in the names of the wife and her children yielded income to Rs. 3500 per annum and consequently she could not be granted maintenance allowance was found to be of no avail to the husband. It was held that a wife, even if she has a source of income, is entitled to maintenance allowance. The revision petition filed on behalf of the husband having met the fate of dismissal, the husband has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.