GURDEEP SINGH Vs. BALWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition is filed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in Criminal Revision No. 7 of 6.2.1986, dated 19.9.1986.

(2.) THE respondent is wife of the petitioner. She filed an application in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala as Criminal Misc No. 11 - T/30.4.85/12.8.83 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance against her husband petitioner herein According to her, her marriage took place with the petitioner on 11.2.1981 at village Ramgarh Chhanna, Tehsil Nabha and both of them lived as husband and wife at village Hassanpur, Tehsil Patiala after the marriage. Thereafter the revision petitioner and his parents who were greedy persons were treating the respondent with cruelty. They forced her to bring money from her parents and two months after the marriage, the husband demanded a. sum of Rs. 10,000/ - for purchasing a motor cycle which demand was met by her parents. Thereafter, in June, 1981, the husband sought financial help from her parents for construction of the house. Thereupon the father of the respondent advanced a sum of Rs. 35,000/ - to the petitioner as a loan but the petitioner did not return the same. On the other hand, he made a further demand of Rs. fifty thousand for meeting the expenses of the marriage of his sister. In order to get this money from her parents, the petitioner took to her parents house in village Ramgarh Chhanna on 15.6.1982 where they stayed for two days. But his father -in -law expressed his inability, to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - Being annoyed with the same, the petitioner husband did not take her to his house by making a promise to come again. Thereafter, the petitioner husband was arrested for participating in Akali Morcha and fell ill. Thereafter, the respondent -wife, her father and her brother visited the husband in the Central Jail, Patiala 3/4 times. There the husband told her not to come to meet him. When the husband fell ill in the jail, he was admitted in Rajindera Hospital, Patiala. When the respondent -wife and her mother visited him on 22.9.1982 there the petitioner - husband told the respondent wife that he wanted to remarry and would not keep her and she should not come to him again. Thus from 15.6.1982, the respondent wife has been deserted and the petitioner husband neglected and refused to maintain her. Thereafter, the petitioner -husband filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 25.12.1982 and the same was dismissed for default on 14.1.1983. Again the petitioner husband filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 33.1983. In that application, the respondent wife also filed a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite. In that application, a sum of Rs. 150/ - per month was awarded during the pendency of the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Subsequently, that application was also dismissed on 2.9.1983. The petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was also closed by the Court without passing any order with regard to future maintenance. Therefore, the respondent -wife filed application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against her husband claiming maintenance. In that application, the respondent -wife examined four witnesses while the petitioner husband examined 3 witnesses. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Patiala dismissed the application for maintenance. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent wife preferred Criminal Revision No. 7 of 6.2.1986 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala reversed the order of the learned Magistrate and awarded a , sum of Rs. 300/ - per month as maintenance to the wife. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner -husband preferred the above revision petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there are no grounds for awarding maintenance and that the order of the Additional Sessions Judge is based on conjectures and surmises and the evidence clearly shows that it was the respondent wife who deserted him on the assumption that, the petitioner husband was impotent and, therefore, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge awarding maintenance to the respondent -wife is liable to be set aside.