RAMA DEVI Vs. ANAND PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 23. 5. 1986 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon by which the revision petition of Anand Parkash was allowed and the order dated 5. 4. 1985 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gurgaon, allowing the petition filed by the wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directing the husband to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of 25/- per month, was set aside.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, as mentioned in the petition, are that the parties were duly married according to Hindu rites on 16. 7. 1975 at village Bhora Kalan. It is alleged that the husband and the members of this family were not satisfied with the dowry given by the parents of the wife and they had been making demands off and on. It is alleged that parents of the wife had been meeting some demands of the husband and his parents, but the demands of the husband became so alarming that they could not be satisfied. It is also alleged that the wife was not treated properly, and the husband, on failure of the parents of the wife to fulfill his demands, also threatened to enter into another marriage. It is further pleaded that the husband had remarried with a lady resident village Badele, district Bhiwani, and a criminal complaint had been filed accordingly by the wife regarding contracting of second marriage by the husband. It is alleged that the husband finally turned out the wife from the matrimonial house about a year prior to the filing of this petition and that the husband had no legal justification to ignore her. As regards the salary of the husband, it was stated that he was getting Rs. 800/-per month. The wife, therefore, claimed Rs. 400/- per month, as maintenance allowance as it was alleged that the husband was deliberately neglecting to maintain her.

(3.) IN his reply, the husband, while admitting marital relations between the parties, denied that he or his parents made any demand from the wife or her parents. It was pleaded that the wife had left the matrimonial house without any rhyme or reason without the knowledge of the husband or his parents on 24. 4. 1981 and at that time she is alleged to have carried jewellery weighing 20 tolas of the value of Rs. 40,000/ -. It was stated that in the year 1979, the wife had earlier left the matrimonial house and she returned to the company of the husband only after the father of the husband paid a sum of Rs. 5000/- to the brother of the wife. It is further alleged that now they have demanded more money from the husband who has refused to oblige them and has insisted for the refund of Rs. 5000/- already paid. The allegation of contracting second marriage was denied. It was pleaded that as the wife had herself left the matrimonial house on her own accord, she was not entitled to any maintenance allowance.