SWARNA Vs. PARKASHO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated February 20, 1979 vide which the suit of the plaintiff-respondent, in forma-pauperis for arrears of maintenance allowance, was partly decreed and she was allowed maintenance for a period of three years at the rate of Rs. 75.00 per month from September 15, 1973 to September 15, 1976 and at the same rate from the date of filing the suit. till her life time with costs.

(2.) IT was, inter-alia, pleaded by the plaintiff that she was married to the defendant about 25 years ago and she resided with him for a period of ten years after the marriage. The defendant had been allegedly maltreating her even during the period she stayed with him and thereafter she was turned out of her matrimonial home. The defendant was alleging that the plaintiff had not given birth to any child and for this reason he had been finding lame excuse for turning her out of his house. Later, the defendant completely deserted the plaintiff. All entreaties of the plaintiff to rehabilitate her proved abortive. In the compelling circumstances, plaintiff filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of complete desertion, culpable neglect and defendant becoming a Sadhu (Saint ). But during the pendency of the suit, plaint moved an application Under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance pendente-line on which the defendant was ordered to pay maintenance @ Rs. 40.00 per month and Rs. 50.00 as expenses of litigation. The amount was, however, not paid. On dismissal of the application for dissolution of marriage, the defendant filed an application Under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the court of Shri H. N. Nohria, Sub Judge, 1st Class, Jalandhar, but the same was also dismissed on February 27,1974. In the plaint, it has further been detailed the way and mariner the defendant used to extend threats to her during the pendency of the litigation. It is also made out from the plaint that the defendant had neglected the plaintiff for about 15 Years. The suit was contested by the defendant, who admitted the plaintiff to be his legally wedded wife and averred that he had never refused to maintain her. On the other hand it is the plaintiff who had filed the divorce petition and also an application Under Section 488 CPC. He denied ill treatment to the plaintiff and further that he had become Sadhu (Saint ).