BIR SINGH JIWAN SINGH Vs. SIBO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a recommendation made by Mr. G. C. Jain, Sessions Judge, Jullundur, dated the 21st December, 1955, to the effect that the order made by the Magistrate under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, be quashed.

(2.) MST. Sibo was married to Bir Singh and they have a son aged eight. On the 29th of September 1955 the wife made an application under Section 488 of Criminal Procedure Code asking for maintenance. Evidence was recorded by the Magistrate. In support of the application Sewa Singh, a Sarpanch of the village, appeared as a witness and stated that he went with a Panchayat to the husband to take back the wife but he refused to take her back. The cross-examination does not disclose that this part of the statement about the taking of the Panchayat was challenged. The next witness is Pritu, a brother of the wife, who has also stated that the husband has refused to keep the wife and has neglected to maintain her. The wife herself appeared as P. W 3 and stated that she was married when she was 13 and she lived with the husband for two or three years and after that she was given a beating and turned out of the house and the husband himself left her at her mother's place. In cross-examination she stated that she did not know why her husband ill-treated her or was not prepared to take her back. She also said that. she was prepared to go with her husband provided the Panchayat of the village gave an assurance and the husband were to come to her parents' house and take her from there. What she seems to have said is that she was only prepared to go if she had assurance of her safety.

(3.) THE husband went into the witness-box and stated that the wife was taken away by her mother who complained that she (the wife) was made to do all kinds of difficult household chores. He also said that in the previous Jeth he had taken Lachhman Singh and Mehr Singh to the wife taut she refused to return to his house and he offered to take her with him from the Court but he was not prepared to go to her parents' house. Saran Singh P. W. 1 appeared in support of the husband's case and said that the wife had refused to come with the husband, but in cross-examination he stated that the mother had told them that she Was not prepared to send the wife to her husband because she was made to do all kinds of unpleasent household work and she was subjected to ill-treatment. P. W. 2 Lachhman Singh's statement is similar, and in cross-examination he stated that the mother had refused to send the daughter because of the illtreatment of the husband.