AJIT SINGH Vs. JASWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Criminal Revision Nos. 564 and 1545 of 1962 arise out of the same order passed in proceedings initiated by Smt. Jaswant Kaur under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, against her husband Major Ajit Singh Mangat. She claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- P.M. from the date of the application which was filed in October, 1958. According to her case she and Major Ajit Singh were married to each other at Patiala on 3rd February, 1952, at the residence of her brother Shri R.S. Kang. They lived as husband and wife up to the end of February, 1952 only. The husband according to the wife's contention, was posted at Jandiala Guru in District Amritsar as a Major in those days and was on leave. After staying at Patiala for about a month or so he went to Jandiala Guru to join his duties promising to take her along with him when he got a family accommodation. Thereafter he was posted at Ambala Cantt. in April, 1952 which was a family station, but in spite of repeated requests by her and her brother etc., Major Ajit Singh did not even attempt to have family accommodation and indeed always tried to avoid taking her to the matrimonial home on the excuse or pretext that he had no family accommodation and that he could not get his wife in the officer's mess. Even her jewellery and wedding clothes were taken by him on the protext of showing them to his friends never to be returned again. Having failed to persuade her husband to take her back to live with him, she initiated proceedings under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When she applied for maintenance she was working as a School Teacher in a local School at Patiala.

(2.) The petition was resisted by the husband who denied having deserted his wife or having neglected to maintain her. According to him, it was the wife who was responsible for the separate residence of the two spouses as she was not agreeable to live a married life with him in spite of his best efforts for reconciliation. The jurisdiction of the Court was also objected to and it was pleaded that the parties had last resided at Kirkee and not at Patiala where they had gone in connection with temporary transfer. The learned Magistrate framed the following issues for trial :-

(3.) Issue No. 2, after a very detailed and exhaustive discussion, was found in favour of the wife. Issue No. 1 which was described to be another crucial issue was dealt with by learned Magistrate at great length. Every point urged before him was considered exclusively. The conclusion at which the Court arrived was that the husband had neglected to maintain his wife throughout the preceding years without any justifiable cause and his callous in-difference towards her during all these years compelled her to seek remedy under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. It would no be out of place to mention that looking at the serious consequence and unpleasantness between the two spouses the learned Magistrate, as is obvious from his judgment, made an attempt to bring about a reconciliation between them. The parties and their relatives, and friends were also present before the Court in this connection. The wife immediately expressed her willingness to accompany her husband but he on the contrary though offering to maintain her, imposed certain conditions. He insisted for the withdrawal of the maintenance application and on her joining him at his headquarters at Kirkee or Poona. He declined to accept the counter suggestion made by the wife that he should accompany them to her house and thereafter she would join him at his station of posting. The impression formed by the learned Magistrate was that the husband was only trying to dodge her by getting the application withdrawn. The wife was willing to agree to the withdrawal of the application provided her husband actually and earnestly assured her that he would keep her with himself. From the conduct of the parties the Magistrate appears to have formed an impression that the husband was not genuinely desirous of taking his wife back and this was so in spite of the fact that his application for judicial separation had been dismissed.