SURESH KUMAR Vs. MAMTA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition stands directed against the impugned order recorded on 13.08.2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Una, Camp at Amb, District Una, H.P., in Crl. Revision RBT No. 6/2013/2011 whereby he reversed the verdict pronounced by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1, Amb, District Una, H.P. on an application preferred there before by the respondent herein under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under the impugned rendition, the learned Additional Sessions Judge assessed qua the respondent herein maintenance quantified in a sum of Rs.5000.00 per month. He pronounced therein qua the aforesaid per mensem amount of maintenance being payable w.e.f. 21.04.2010. Standing aggrieved, the petitioner herein has assailed herebefore the impugned rendition.

(2.) Uncontrovertedly, the litigating parties herebefore are married partners. An obligation under law is cast upon the husband to maintain his lawfully married wife. On emphatic proof standing adduced qua his neglecting to maintain his wife or refusing to maintain her, would entail upon the trial Magistrate concerned to assess maintenance qua the married spouse unless evidence of immense vigour stands adduced there before by the husband qua his married spouse possessing sufficient means to maintain herself. An inference of the husband refusing besides neglecting to maintain his lawfully wedded wife would stand spurred even when his lawfully married spouse stands precluded by strong exceptional compelling reasons to alienate herself from the matrimonial company of her husband. However, the learned trial Magistrate on incisively traversing through the evidence as stood adduced before him, has concluded of the purported incident(s) of physical cruelty perpetrated upon the respondent herein by her husband during the former's stay at her matrimonial home remaining unproven whereupon he concluded of the departure of the respondent herein to her parental home not standing emphatically established to stand founded upon any reasonable ground rather her stay thereat being pretextual whereupon he refused to assess maintenance per mensem qua the respondent herein.

(3.) Dehors the tenacity or otherwise of the evidence adduced before the learned trial Magistrate displaying the factum of the respondent herein during her stay at her matrimonial home standing subjected to belabourings by her husband, the imperative fact which was enjoined to be pronounced upon was qua the petitioner herein, since his married spouse leaving for her parental home on 17.01.2009 whereat she since thereat has been continuously staying, making sincere genuine efforts to retrieve her to her matrimonial home, efforts whereof standing spurned by the respondent herein, would foster an inference of the respondent herein without any reasonable cause staying at her parental home whereupon she would be dis-entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. Contrarily, on emergence of evidence in display of her husband not making any genuine sincere efforts to retrieve her to her matrimonial home would entail upon him an obligation to maintain her thereat also necessarily with his omitting to retrieve her to her matrimonial home would galvanize an inference of his abandoning her company, concomitantly, thereupon he cannot refuse or neglect to maintain his married spouse despite the latter staying with her parents.