JEET RAM Vs. KAMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, herein, is aggrieved by the order, dated 31.12.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra affirming the order, dated 26.6.2008, passed by the learned Addl. CJM, Dehra, District Kangra, whereby the Respondent, herein, has been granted maintenance allowance of Rs. 1500/ - per month from the date of filing the petition i.e. 30.10.2007. The Respondent, herein, filed a petition under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance. It was pleaded that the Respondent was married to the Petitioner on 20.2.1973 according to Hindu rites at village Dharamshala Mohanta, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P and a son, Raj Kumar, was born in December 1974 and daughter, Mamta Devi, was born in the year 1977. Owing to some misunderstanding between the parties, marriage was dissolved by the trial court taking recourse to the provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Petitioner's claim was allowed. The trial court held that the Petitioner was drawing a sum of Rs. 23000/ -per month by way of salary and in this view of the matter, the amount awarded, i.e. Rs. 1500/ -per month is not excessive. The Petitioner, thereafter, preferred criminal revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge Kangra, who after consideration of the entire evidence on record, dismissed the same. Now, the Petitioner has challenged the order under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure on various grounds.

(2.) ONE of the grounds urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that basic ingredients of Section 125 have not been satisfied and that the Respondent, herein, who has deserted the Petitioner, is not entitled to any maintenance. On going through the judgments of both the courts below, I do not think that this finding, having been urged, has not been considered while passing the judgments by the courts below. The second ground is that since the Respondent has been granted permanent alimony to the extent of Rs. 250/ -per month under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, she is not entitled to any maintenance. This submission is rejected for the reason that a sum of Rs. 250/ -per month is too paltry for maintenance now -a -days. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi, : AIR 1975 SC 83 to urge that right to maintenance is not absolute. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placing reliance on another judgment in Deb Narayan Halder v. Anushree Halder, : AIR 2003 SC 3174 submits that since wife has withdrawn the company of the husband herself, no maintenance can be granted to her. To the similar effect, learned Counsel places reliance in Balak Ram v. Kirna Devi Latest, 2009 HLJ (HP) 1177.