BALAK RAM Vs. PADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by one Balak Ram against the order of the first class Magistrate of Theog dated 13-7-1951 under Section 488, Criminal P. C., granting Rs. 40/- p. m. as maintenance to the petitioner's wife Mt. Padi, the respondent.

(2.) Mt. Padi applied for maintenance against the petitioner at Rs. 100/- p. m. on 12-4-1951 on the ground of neglect and refusal on his part to maintain her. It was alleged by her that the petitioner had turned her out of house arid home and thereafter contracted marriage with another wife. The petitioner appeared before the Magistrate on 3-7-1951 when both the parties prayed for time to come to a compromise and the case was adjourned to 11-7-1951. The same Balak Ram vs. Mt. Padi (05.05.1952 - HPHC) Page 1 of 4 day, i. e. on 3-7-1951, the parties came to a written compromise outside Court. It was agreed under this compromise that Mt. Padi would reside with Balak Ram and had no objection to the latter having contracted a second marriage, that Balak Ram agreed to her living with him and would bear all her necessary expenses and satisfy her desires, that he would be absolved from the liability to maintain her if she refused to live with him without sufficient cause, and that the compromise deed would be produced before the Court on 11-7-1951 and Mt. Padi would have no further right to prosecute her case. The compromise deed was prepared in duplicate, one copy having been given to each party.

(3.) On the date to which the case had been adjourned, i. e. on 11-7-1951, Balak Ram produced his copy of the deed before the Magistrate and made a statement that the parties had come to a compromise. Mt. Padi however repudiated the compromise and stated that she had been forced by her brother to affix her thumb-mark to it. Besides examining the parties the Magistrate also recorded the statement of the scribe of the deed of compromise, who was produced as a witness by Balak Ram, and the statement of Mt. Padi's brother, who appears to have been examined by the Court suo motu. The Magistrate, however, recorded no finding but simply adjourned the case to 12-7-1951. There is nothing to show what, if anything, happened on 12-7-1951. On 13-7- 1951 the Magistrate recorded the statement of Balak Ram and delivered his judgment granting maintenance to Mt. Padi as aforesaid. While examining Balak Ram the Magistrate asked him to show cause why separate maintenance be not awarded to Mt. Padi because he had turned her out, contracted a second marriage and neglected to maintain her. To that Balak Ram replied that he had not turned her out but she had gone away of her own accord, that he had contracted a second marriage for domestic reasons, that he was willing tc keep Mt. Padi with him but not to give her separate maintenance and that if she so wished he was ready to give her separate accommodation in his house. The Magistrate recorded findings in his judgment on only two points, namely, that the compromise was no bar to his granting maintenance, and that as Balak Ram had contracted a second marriage Mt. Padi was entitled to separate maintenance. As regards the rate of maintenance, he fixed it at Rs. 40/- p.m. "according to the prevalent conditions."