RAJA RAM Vs. SMT. SUNDARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Sundari Devi, respondent, who is the married wife of Shri Raja Ram, revision petitioner filed an application under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 and claimed maintenance for herself and her four minor children from Raja Ram on the ground of his neglect and refusal to maintain them inspite of the fact that he was possessed of sufficient means. She also alleged that she had been maltreated by her husband. Raja Ram contested the petition and refuted her right to claim maintenance. He inter alia pleaded that he was not earning anything and because of the insolent behaviour of Smt. Sundri Devi towards him he was forced to leave his house and live with his son Sita Ram, by whom he was being supported.

(2.) THE learned Trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that Raja Ram had refused and neglected to maintain Smt. Sundri Devi and her children. Accepting her case he awarded a maintenance of Rs. 150/ - per month in favour of Smt. Sundri Devi and her four children against Raja Ram. The revision petitioner felt dissatisfied with the order of the learned Trial Magistrate and took the matter in revision. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, disagreed with the findings of the learned Trial Magistrate, on the point of neglect and refusal to maintain by Raja Ram. He held that Smt. Sundri Devi was a woman of quarrel some nature and because of her temperament Raja Ram was forced to leave his house and live with his son Sita Ram. He also came to the conclusion that Raja Ram, being an old man of 66 years with a weak eye sight, was incapable of earning anything. The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the finding that because of his inability of earn, Raja Ram was not possessed of sufficient means to maintain his wife and children. He also held that Smt. Sundri Devi's son Daya Ram, was earning about Rs. 100/ - per month and as she was possessed of means to maintain herself and her children, she was not entitled to claim anything. The learned Additional Sessions Judge referred the case under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (here -in -after referred to as 'the Code') for vacating the order of the Trial Magistrate awarding maintenance. In the alternative the learned Additional Sessions Judge, also made a recommendation that in case the reference was not accepted, the amount of maintenance be reduced to Rs. 50/ - per month for Smt. Sundri Devi and her children.

(3.) THE reference to quash the order allowing cannot be accepted.