ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. VEENA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a petition filed by Veena Rani respondent (wife) and her minor daughter Shobha Rani, against Ashwani Kumar husband of the former, under section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, held that the wife was not, entitled to maintenance allowance, but granted maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month in favour of the minor daughter. The wife filed a Revision Petition against the said order which was accepted by the Sessions Judge, Sonepat, to the extent that maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per. month was allowed in favour of Veena Rani and Rs. 100/- per month in favour of Shobha Rani. The learned Sessions Judge further directed that as the petitioner was under suspension, he shall pay maintenance allowance at the rates of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 67/- respectively for the wife and the daughter, during the period of his suspension from service. The petitioner seeks to impugn these decisions by means of the present Petition under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The parties were married on January 19, 1979 and a female child, i.e. Shobha Rani, respondent No. 2 was born out of the wedlock on December 19, 1979. The case of respondent No. 1-wife is that the petitioner had treated her with harsh and rude behaviour and had quite often given her severe bearing. She further claimed that the petitioner had neglected to maintain her and hence she prayed for the grant of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month for herself and for her minor child. The petition was contested by the petitioner who asserted that respondent No. 1 had deserted him and that he obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against her from the Court of District Judge, Delhi, on March 4, 1982. He expressed his willingness to maintain the wife and, thus, denied the claim for maintenance.

(3.) It may be observed here that the learned Sessions Judge has given a though scrutiny to the matter while disposing of the Revision Petition filed in that Court. During the course of this examination, it was found on the basis of the evidence adduced by the respondent-wife that the petitioner had entered into a second marriage. This averment was, however, not made in the application for maintenance, as the second marriage is said to have taken place after the filing of the application. Incidentally, it may be mentioned here that the second wife of the petitioner has also appeared in the witness-box to prove the factum of the second marriage. The learned Sessions Judge observed that from the evidence it appeared that Asha (A.W. 3), the second wife was living a happy married life with Ashwani Kumar petitioner, but on account of a marital breach, he got her aborted from a Hospital, at the time when she was carrying a 3 or 4 months old pregnancy. The learned Sessions Judge also relied upon a number of photographs in proof of the fact of the second marriage of the petitioner. In view of these circumstances, respondent No. 1 was held entitled to receive maintenance allowance which was allowed, as already noticed.