RAM MURTI, ETC Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short matter that arises for consideration in this revision petition is as to whether a husband, who had been paying maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act till 9th February, 1966 under the orders of the Court be held to have neglected or refused to maintain his wife so as to entitle her to put in a petition under Section 488 Criminal Procedure Code on 8th March, 1966, without any overt act of refusal on his part during this period. The facts which gave rise to this situation are simple. Shrimati Ram Murti was married to Sohan Lal on 9th May, 1959. She withdrew herself from the society of Sohan Lal which forced Sohan Lal to move a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. That petition was compromised and a decree was passed on 13th August, 1962. Ram Murti agreed to return to the house of Sohan Lal, if he took her from her parent's house, which he did on 20th August, 1962. Thereafter, the parties resided together at Phagwara and also had a female child, namely Pinki. Thereafter, again the parties fell out and allegations of maltreatment were made and Ram Murti was taken away by her father and certain criminal proceedings were also instituted by her father against Sohan Lal, a result of which he remained in jail. About a month or so afterwards, Sohan Lal filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce on the allegations that Ram Murti had not complied with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. This petition was instituted on 5th September, 1964, but was dismissed on 9th February, 1966, and it was held that the parties had lived together at Phagwara after the passing of the decree and the wedlock resulted in the birth of a child. It is a common ground that during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 13, Shrimati Ram Murti was getting maintenance pendente lite at the rate of 30/- per mensum as ordered by the Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Within one month of the dismissal of the application under Section 13, the present petition under Section 488 Criminal Procedure Code was filed by Shrimati Ram Murti and her child Pinki. This petition appears to have been drafted on 1st March, 1966 and was put in Court on 8th March, 1966 with the allegations that prior to the institution of the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, respondent Sohan Lal had maltreated her and had turned her out. It was further pleaded that after the compromise during the period, the petitioner lived with Sohan Lal he again maltreated her, but she continued bearing the torture, but ultimately got a letter written to her father, who took her away from the house of Sohan Lal with the help of the police. It was next pleaded that the respondent Sohan Lal had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which had been dismissed on 9th February, 1966. It was on these facts that a maintenance to the tune of Rs. 150/- per mensum was prayed.

(2.) The petition was contested by Sohan Lal and it was denied that she was ever maltreated. It was pleaded that in fact she want to leave the house while the child was in an ailing condition which was refused by the respondent, but the father of the petitioner, who is a strong head person, took away forcibly the petitioner. But subsequently realising his mistake, the petitioner was again left at the house of respondent's parents. It was pleaded that if he had maltreated her, she would never have been brought back to the house of the respondent's parents only two days of her being taken away.

(3.) It appears that the application was dismissed by Shri S.K. Dhir on the ground that he had no jurisdiction. But the reversion was accepted and the case was remanded for retrial. The learned trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parities, has granted Rs. 50/- per mensum as maintenance to Ram Murti and Rs. 40/- per mensum to the child, Pinki. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Magistrate, both the parties have come up in revision. Whereas, Ram Murti and Pinki have come up in revision. Whereas, Ram Murti and Pinki have claimed enhancement of maintenance from the date of application. Sohan Lal claimed that the order of the learned Magistrate be quashed. Vide this judgment, I will dispose of both the petitions of revision.