SATYA DEVI Vs. GURDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent wife filed an application under section 488 Cr. P.C. for the grant of maintenance to her and to the children of the parties. The trial court of Sub-Registrar, Jammu vide its order dated 30/11/1983 directed the payment of Rs. 100/to the wife, Rs. 75/- to Bachnu minor daughter and Rs. 50/- to Bachan minor son with effect from the date of the application i.e. 11/9/1981 with a direction that the arrears shall be paid by the petitioner-husband in three equal installments. The court also prescribed the mode and schedule for making the payment of the arrears.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order of the trial court, the petitioner filed a revision petition in the court of Sessions Judge, Jammu who vide order of reference dated 31/1/1984 recommended that the order of the trial court in so far as it grants maintenance to the wife be set aside and the order of maintenance for the children be up-held. The criminal reference has been registered by this court as Cr. Ref. No. 5 of 1984. Aggrieved by the order of reference the wife has filed a revision petition No. 29 of 1984 praying therein that the order of the trial court granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month be confirmed and the recommendation of the Sessions Judge made vide the order of reference be set aside. Both the petitions will be disposed of by one order.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case including the file of the trial court. Mr. Sehgal the learned counsel appearing for the husband submits that the order of reference bas to be accepted and the revision petition filed by the wife to be dismissed because it has not been proved that the husband bas refused or neglected to maintain his wife within the meaning of section 488 Cr. P.C. Relying upon the Judgment of learned Sessions Judge, he has submitted that, if she bas left her husbands house of her own and unless it is proved by evidence that the petitioner refused or neglected to maintain her, she would not be entitled to any maintenance allowance under section 488 Cr. P. C. Mr. Sehgal submits that it is not obligatory for every husband to pay the maintenance to every wife as and when she demands without satisfying the court the existence of the grounds for living separately.