SURKHI RAM Vs. RAJ DULARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aged parents, a virtuous wife and infant child must be maintained even by doing a hundred misdeeds" (Manu cited in Mitakshara) This is a reference made by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu holding that the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, R. S. Pura whereby he had allowed monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 3000/- in favour of respondent Raj Dulari and her minor children is not in accordance with law What prevailed with the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to make a reference is that none of the respondents appeared in the Court to substantiate their claim. It has been observed that in these circumstances the trial Court misdirected itself in fixing the maintenance amount of Rs. 3000/- p.m.

(2.) The respondent Raj Dulari and her three minor children had preferred a petition under Section 488, Cr. P.C. It was pleaded that marriage between her and Surkhi Ram was solemnized about 19 years ago in accordance with Hindu rites. Out of this wed-lock four children were born. Daughter is with father. Three sons are with mother. They are school going. In para 4 of the petition it was submitted that the husband had kicked them out from the matrimonial house. In para 6 of the petition it was submitted that they have no other means of livelihood. So far as the income is concerned it was pleaded that the respondent is holding two acres of agricultural land and also run a big Diary Farm and earns about Rs. 30,000/- per month. It was in these circumstances prayed that the respondent be directed to pay the maintenance allowance in terms of Section 48, Cr. P.C.

(3.) The present petitioner Surkhi Ram, who figured as non-applicant in the petition under Section 488, Cr. P.C. filed his objections. He admitted that Raj Dulari is his wedded wife. Regarding Sunil Sharma, it is stated that he is 18 years of age and is therefore, not entitled to any maintenance. With regard to the statement of fact that is contained in paragraph 3, that these children are school going, there was a simple denial. In para 4 of the objections it was stated that one of the petitioner is living in the house of maternal grand-father and none of the children is a burden on respondent No. 1 Raj Dulari. It was further pleaded that he had not deserted his wife. It may however be seen that in the objections preferred by the respondents he has not said a single word that he is ready and willing to bring back his wife or the children or to maintain them or that he has made any attempt to confer fatherly affection on the children.