SUBHAGI DEVI Vs. MURLI PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Subhagi Devi is aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate of Chaibasa rejecting her claim for maintenance against the opposite party in a proceeding under Section 488. Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) It is common ground that the petitioner was married to the opposite party some time in 1952 and she gave birth to a son sometime in 1955, but subsequently the relationship between the husband and the wife became strained. According to the petitioner, the opposite party began to ill-treat her. Sometimes he also assaulted her In May 1959, he turned her out of his house and so she took shelter at her father's house in village Pansua, police station Chakradharpur. In August 1959, there was a Panchaiyati and at the intervention of the punchas, the opposite party agreed to take her back to his house in village Sosokora, police station Goalkera, and to treat her well. But the reconciliation did not last long and the opposite party again began to ill-treat and assault her. On the 28th November 1961 she was again turned out by the opposite party from his house and since then she has been living with her parents at Pansua. In the month of Asarh 1962, the opposite party took a second wife, who subsequently gave birth to a son The further case of the petitioner was that ever since the opposite party turned her out of his house in November 1961, he had been completely neglecting to maintain her Accordingly on the 19th October 1964, she filed her application in Court claiming maintenance from the opposite party at the rate of Rs. 50 per month on the allegation that the opposite party was a man of means having sufficient paddy fields from which he was getting about 120 maunds of paddy per year.

(3.) The opposite party denied the allegations of ill-treatment and neglect made by the petitioner. His case was that there was no incident of turning out and Panchaiyati in 1959. As regards the incident of November 1961, his case was that the petitioner had left his house during his temporary absence on the 28th November 1961. Thereafter, the opposite party made repeated attempts to take her back from her father's house, but petitioner was adamant and her father also refused to send her. On the other hand, she and her father insisted that the opposite party should divorce her and cut off all marital relations with her. Accordingly, the opposite party divorced the petitioner in accordance with the custom of the parties. Thereafter, he took another wife with whom he was living in peace. According to the opposite party, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to claim any maintenance from him. He was also not possessed of sufficient means for the purpose.