NEGINDER SINGH Vs. KULWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent wife who initially failed to secure an order of maintenance under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla, has however succeeded by virtue of her revision before the Additional Sessions Judge (III), Sangrur, vide his order dated August 23, 1986. She has been allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/ - p.m. The petitioner husband impugns this order.

(2.) THE primary submission of his learned Counsel is that right at the initial stages of the trial, the petitioner had offered to maintain the respondent wife in case she was wiling to live with him at his place and in the absence of rejection of that offer by the lower Court for sufficient cause, no maintenance could be allowed in her favour. In order to sustain this plea, he places reliance on Criminal Revision No. 1044 of 1981 (Raghibr Singh v. Krishna) decided on July 16, 1982. There is absolutely no dispute with the legal proposition as recorded in the abovenoted judgment. In the instant case however, I find that the reason which has been found by the lower Court for discarding the respondent by the petitioner is still subsisting and in the light of that the offer of the petitioner to maintain the respondent cannot possibly be accepted to be bonafide. The reason disclosed by the wife for not keeping her in the matrimonial home is that she failed to bear a child during all these 8 to 9 years of her married life with the petitioner and on that account the petitioner not only maltreated her but also had an intention to re -marry. As a matter of fact it is not in dispute that subsequent to the filing of this petition under Section 125 of the Code by the respondent the petitioner made a counter move under Section (sic) of the Hindu Marriage Act but has failed. In the said judgment the plea of the petitioner that the wife was living away from him without any just or sufficient cause has been negatived. I, therefore, find no material to disagree with the conclusions recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge in paragraphs 7 to 10 of his impugned judgment.

(3.) IN the light of the discussion above and in the absence of any other argument on behalf of the petitioner, this petition obviously has to fail and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.